Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[WGBH]

At the risk of a mod beating for following the same poster around the board too closely (joke son - only 2nd quote today), desertgal's suggestion is timely and makes true sense. I've been giving WGBH as much 'slack' as anyone probably could, considering it's been 2-3 YEARS, but it's time to get a grip on reality. WGBH saw Bigfoot! And we need to get over it. Cosmic truth isn't really such a big player in this little game. And besides, had I been the one to see that 9x6 monster depicted in the comparison pic above, I'd be the one regularly seeking the nearest Liquor For Good Mental Health™ store. Yes, the one next to that Cigarettes Make You Breathe Better™ store.

Why is it a waste of time to talk about it? I can understand if you are bored with the topic as you may be because of our history. Not everyone here seems to feel that way though. What kind of slack have you given me Harry? Are you admitting that deep down you feel I am a liar and have been kind to me for all these years? You think I do not suspect you feel this way or that it does not make me feel terrible when it comes from someone I respect like yourself?

[desertgal]

Why is it a waste of time to talk about it?

I realize that my posts are invisible to you, but I'll respond anyway.

As I already said, what will talking about it further achieve? You've described the experience in full, and answered questions that clarified it. The details have been covered=the only thing left is to discuss the same details over and over again. You won't relinquish your position that the only reasonable explanation was that it was a Bigfoot. Since you refuse to consider alternate explanations, any further advice we might give you to help you deal with your issues is extremely limited-and, really, requires a professional mental health professional, not skeptics on a message board. In the beginning, you mentioned that you were looking for answers - in general, or from us, or both, I'm not sure - but we can give you neither, much as we might want to help, since you reject all explanations but your own. All that is left is rising exasperation. We've already seen Crowlogic, a long time member, cancel her membership here because of the events in this thread that are born of exasperation. Perhaps, as you say, you have a thick skin, and don't mind that - but that doesn't mean the rest of us feel the same way. We don't want to wade through further exasperated remarks to discuss what has already been discussed.

To sum up:
Your explanation is right - alternate explanations are not.
Further discussion will not change the above.
Stalemate.

[WGBH]

I realize that my posts are invisible to you, but I'll respond anyway.

Your posts are not invisible to me

As I already said, what will talking about it further achieve? You've described the experience in full, and answered questions that clarified it. The details have been covered=the only thing left is to discuss the same details over and over again.

You won't relinquish your position that the only reasonable explanation was that it was a Bigfoot. Since you refuse to consider alternate explanations, any further advice we might give you to help you deal with your issues is extremely limited-and, really, requires a professional mental health professional,not skeptics on a message board. In the beginning, you mentioned that you were looking for answers - in general, or from us, or both, I'm not sure - but we can give you neither, much as we might want to help, since you reject all explanations but your own.


I have only refused to consider armchair opinions regarding my mental and ethical capacities. I do not refuse the help of a mental health professional regarding my sleep problems. In fact it has begun.

I am not seeking answers regarding my encounter. This thread was for me to answer the JREF forum questions about it, as I was asked. Sorry if that was lost on you. I am seeking new ideas for my research. I was hoping for contributions to that and not ridicule. My hope is dwindling.

All that is left is rising exasperation. We've already seen Crowlogic, a long time member, cancel her membership here because of the events in this thread that are born of exasperation. Perhaps, as you say, you have a thick skin, and don't mind that - but that doesn't mean the rest of us feel the same way. We don't want to wade through further exasperated remarks to discuss what has already been discussed.

Then I would suggest another thread if this one has you frustrated.

To sum up:
Your explanation is right - alternate explanations are not.

This was never about who is wrong or right. It was simply a forum for questions about my encounter. Just because I choose to believe what I do, does not make any of your opinions wrong. I am not that vain and you should not be either.

Further discussion will not change the above.
Stalemate.

Who was looking for change?

[Skeptical Greg]

To be fair, the question asked was :

Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

WGBH, answered the question ..

He hasn't asked for help, or to be saved from what others may think is a mistaken identification ..

If anyone doesn't like his answers, find another thread ..

Stop shooting the messenger...



Way to hang in there WGBH !

[desertgal]

NM

[desertgal]

He hasn't asked for help, or to be saved from what others may think is a mistaken identification ..

Not specifically, no. But here, he said:

Kit,

I totally agree with what you said. It is hard to wrap ones mind around this. I have no explanation for what I saw. But I did see it. Who says it lives in the swamp? Maybe it was just passing through? The area has tons of deer and other wildlife. I am not an outdoors man. I am just now learning about the woods. I do not know what the heck happened to me. But I hope to understand it someday.

He also said, in another post that I haven't located yet, that he is "looking for answers".

Sorry, I'm not intending to dog John, or shoot the messenger, or ridicule him. Many of us posted after reading posts such as the one above, which indicated, to me, that he was open to other explanations. I think several people felt like moths beating themselves against a light, because they offered alternate opinions after feeling, by the post above, that there would be give and take only to have their opinions shot down by John's insistence that it was Bigfoot. Hence some exasperation, and some snarky comments.

There's some mixed signals here. He just gave me a scornful (I thought) reply, insisting that he only came here to answer questions and never wanted alternate explanations-because I wondered why continue a thread when he's shooting everyone down. He implied that he is losing heart because of ridicule-a comment that neither acknowledges or shows appreciation for the fact that most of this thread were polite posts, offering alternate explanations that he seemed to invite, shot down, and now says he never wanted.

I'm not being critical of him, I was just thinking that if he was going to continue to shoot down all opinions, the thread should be closed to save folks some frustration, and a descent into snarkiness, from the mixed signals.

(Sorry, John, if you see duplicate points-I deleted my earlier post just as you quoted it.)

ETA: Never mind. If folks want to post, post away. And, no, John, I don't represent the JREF-sorry for the "we". I just hated to see what has been a predominantly polite thread evaporate from the frustration.

[WGBH]

Yes, I know you said that you were here to answer questions, but, as well, in the beginning, you stated that you were looking for answers. That may not have been directed at the members here, but, if so, it wasn't clear.

I did not start the thread. I was asked to come here from another thread to answer questions about my encounter. I apologize for not being clear.

Folks have offered several 'armchair diagnoses' throughout this thread-yes, you rejected them, but you did not make clear that you did not want them at all.

People can post what they want. Why is it bad if I decide not to subscribe to it? I am not forcing anyone to subscribe to my claims.

If you had said that, none of us would have bothered.

None of you? So you speak for the JREF?

See above. A simple "I am not looking for armchair diagnoses or alternate explanations of what I saw, so please don't post them" would have been helpful and saved 15+ pages of people doing just that.

I have said it many times in this thread.

As stated above, it wasn't.

And like I just said above, it is not up to me what people post here.

I'm not sure what you mean. You've stated this thread was for you to answer questions about your encounter.

Correct on both accounts


Excuse me? I have not intentionally ridiculed you. I have not called you a liar, or insane, or any other derogatory term. If I said something you took as ridicule, I apologize.

No need to apologize , I never meant for you to think it was you.

You keep inferring that there is a preponderance of ridicule in this thread, and, actually, there isn't. Many people here have been quite courteous-something the 'ridicule' comment above does not imply or acknowledge. And there may have been some exasperation after multiple rejactions of opinions that we were unaware you did not want in the first place.

Fair enough, but people have different reactions. As you saw with Crow

No, not frustrated, I was just baffled at the ultimate point, since you had said you were looking for answers, but had rejected everything we posted. But, of course, if you are not so politely showing me the door of "your" thread, I'll leave.

I am not showing you the door. You are the one who was unhappy with what was going on so I simply gave you an option.By all means stay


Sigh. But, you also say you are looking for contributions towards ideas for your research. Does that mean you want folks to volunteer that, or you are browsing to get ideas without requiring input?

The research information I am looking for has nothing to to with a thread about answering questions about a Bigfoot encounter and would be well off topic.



Of course not. No opinion is ever wrong. and I am not so vain to believe that. Perhaps wrong was the, well, wrong word to use. Course, again, f you had said 19 pages ago that we didn't need to post conclusions you didn't want, again, that would have been good to know.

For the 3rd time is not up to me to tell people what to post.

[desertyeti]

In answer to the original (12-31-06) question:
Just spotted the thread about the Patterson film, and looking over at it they're seems to be some people claiming to not only believe in bigfoot but claim to have seen one, not im not sure if this is sarcasm, but what the hell....anyone seen a real life sasquatch?

Yes.
Here:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_105064a426ff825f3c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16740)

[WGBH]

Not specifically, no. But here, he said:



He also said, in another post that I haven't located yet, that he is "looking for answers".

Sorry, I'm not intending to dog John, or shoot the messenger, or ridicule him. Many of us posted after reading posts such as the one above, which indicated, to me, that he was open to other explanations. I think several people felt like moths beating themselves against a light, because they offered alternate opinions after feeling welcome to do so by the post above, only to have their opinions shot down by John's insistence that it was Bigfoot. Hence some exasperation, and some snarky comments.

There's some mixed signals here. He just gave me a very scornful reply-insisting that he only came here to answer questions and never wanted alternate explanations-because I wondered why continue a thread when he's shooting everyone down. He implied that he is losing heart because of ridicule-a comment that neither acknowledges or shows appreciation for the fact that most of this thread were polite posts, offering alternate explanations that he seemed to invite, shot down, and now says he never wanted.

Well, if he didn't want alternate explanations, and just wanted us to post questions he could answer, then he should have simply said so in the beginning. I'm not being critical of him, I was just thinking that if he was going to continue to shoot down all opinions, the thread should be closed to save folks some frustration from the mixed signals.

I don't think you are here to dog me. I have read every question and opinion given to me. I have not shot them all down, only most of them. Yes most of the postings here have been polite, and why do I need to show appreciation for people being civil? Should I not expect that?

[kitakaze]

Kit what makes you think that the area is the same as 1982? There were not even any major roads except Route 17 in 1982 and then it was only one lane in each direction. When I was down there a few weeks ago the area looks totally different. It used to take 90 mins to get there in 1982, it now takes 45 mins. I am not saying you are wrong but just curious as to your reasoning.
The area has been significantly developed.

I don't think it was exactly the same. The cities I mentioned didn't appear after 1982 and the farmland was there. The development by man of the area has been going on for hundreds of years. It hardly less ridiculous to think a population of gargantuan wood apes was there in 1982 as it is now. Have sightings all disappeared?

Anyway, your report notes that your sighting was not in the swamp but outside of it on or near the river. I've put the area up on satellite for you. Where roughly would you say you saw the creature that we can look at?

[desertgal]

I don't think you are here to dog me. I have read every question and opinion given to me. I have not shot them all down, only most of them. Yes most of the postings here have been polite, and why do I need to show appreciation for people being civil? Should I not expect that?

Of course you should (although it doesn't always happen on 'believer' threads). You said that you were becoming discouraged by ridicule-I just meant that there was more courtesy than ridicule.

I'm obviously not making my point clear, so I'll be off. No offense meant, and good luck. :)

[WGBH]

Kit, I cant even find the Pasquotank river on that map. I am clueless. I know the cabins were right next to the river and the property was near Rt. 17. I am sorry bud. Can you see the river? I would love to figure out where it was. Maybe the river was a tributary?

[makaya325]

Kit, I cant even find the Pasquotank river on that map. I am clueless. I know the cabins were right next to the river and the property was near Rt. 17. I am sorry bud. Can you see the river? I would love to figure out where it was. Maybe the river was a tributary?

Have you doubted what you saw, due to the fact that an ancient species of monstrous ape could go undetected in such a crowded, small area.

[makaya325]

Kit, I cant even find the Pasquotank river on that map. I am clueless. I know the cabins were right next to the river and the property was near Rt. 17. I am sorry bud. Can you see the river? I would love to figure out where it was. Maybe the river was a tributary?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_296044a42dbf5d14d6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16741)

Are you sure the sighting you had might have this curious beast involved?

[ElectricVoodoo]

nm

[makaya325]

nm

I know my question was irreverant to the post he made. It was concerning his SIGHTING in question

[kitakaze]

Kit, I cant even find the Pasquotank river on that map. I am clueless. I know the cabins were right next to the river and the property was near Rt. 17. I am sorry bud. Can you see the river? I would love to figure out where it was. Maybe the river was a tributary?

Cabins next to river on property near Rt. 17. That might help, I'll look for it.

Here's the link for Pasquotank River again:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=Pasquotank%20river%20Pasquotank%20County&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Click on the blue link for the river to the upper left. When the map comes up use the hand icon to pull the map down so that you can see the obvious chunk of green that is Dismal. See how it has Lake Drummond in the middle? Notice how it kind of look like an upside-down wonky guitar? Well, Lake Drummond would be the sound hole for the guitar and the neck would be the long part that angles off to the right at the bottom. That corridor of green is the area along the Pasquotank River. It empties out at the south at Elizabeth City. When you look at this you can see that this is not some new development that sprung out of nothing in 1995. The land has been this way for a long time and when you see the land, the agricultures, and the urban centers right there, it is just like this kind of brainfart that your monster could be there.

[WGBH]

Cabins next to river on property near Rt. 17. That might help, I'll look for it.

Here's the link for Pasquotank River again:

http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&q=Pasquotank%20river%20Pasquotank%20County&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Click on the blue link for the river to the upper left. When the map comes up use the hand icon to pull the map down so that you can see the obvious chunk of green that is Dismal. See how it has Lake Drummond in the middle? Notice how it kind of look like an upside-down wonky guitar? Well, Lake Drummond would be the sound hole for the guitar and the neck would be the long part that angles off to the right at the bottom. That corridor of green is the area along the Pasquotank River. It empties out at the south at Elizabeth City. When you look at this you can see that this is not some new development that sprung out of nothing in 1995. The land has been this way for a long time and when you see the land, the agricultures, and the urban centers right there, it is just like this kind of brainfart that your monster could be there.

Kit, thanks for the help. I can understand how it works now. I think the area would have been near where Rt 17 meets Morgans Corner Rd. Near the river there. But of course I really cant be sure. Thoughts?

Edited to add: BTW, what the heck is that makaya person talking about in those posts above? I don't get it.

[learner]

Have you doubted what you saw, due to the fact that an ancient species of monstrous ape could go undetected in such a crowded, small area.

Little Mak. Why have you posted that it is a fact that Bigfoot can go undetected in a small crowded area yet previously your view was that Bigfoot couldn't and didn't exist?
Are you covering all bases so that you can carry on with your confusing posts?
Or is it just me that is confused? Its been known.

[JcR]

I think the area would have been near where Rt 17 meets Morgans Corner Rd. Near the river there.

Would this be the area?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964a430d370a88d.jpg

[HarryHenderson]

Why is it a waste of time to talk about it? I can understand if you are bored with the topic as you may be because of our history. Not everyone here seems to feel that way though. What kind of slack have you given me Harry? Are you admitting that deep down you feel I am a liar and have been kind to me for all these years? You think I do not suspect you feel this way or that it does not make me feel terrible when it comes from someone I respect like yourself?

I would never call it a waste of time. More simply that its 15 minutes of fame are up. And really, that's not meant as a 'personal' attack. I'm not renouncing 'my love for you'...man, just coolin' it trying to help you see the obscure, but serious value of doing some genuine and honest 'critical thinking' in regards to not only your Bigfoot Encounter™, but any and all of them.

As for my being bored by it now; yeah. What happened was uniquely your experience, not ours, and the reality (above and beyond the 'reality' I mentioned above) is, there is no way possible for any of us to ever know what it was you actually saw and experienced that 'fateful day'. Thus, whatever it is you've convinced yourself it was...Bigfoot...and you have convinced yourself it was Bigfoot...then that's what it is. It's just that simple. Who am I (really) to 'insist' you saw something different? And if it's not 'just that simple', please tell us what it is you'd accept as a 'possible explanation' that does not include Bigfoot as a living, breathing, zoological entity.

I think that's why you're not genuinely taking Kit's (for example) often very astute and compelling arguments, notions, observations etc. to heart and honestly 'contemplating' them. You're in 'I saw a big hairy monster I did I did I did' mode and you have been all along. I'm just not sure what a forum of 'kinda certified' Bigfoot skeptics is really gonna do for you now except possibly exploit your seeming masochism.

And sorry, my previous post was a little rude. You gotta know I still love you man! ;)

[makaya325]

Little Mak. Why have you posted that it is a fact that Bigfoot can go undetected in a small crowded area yet previously your view was that Bigfoot couldn't and didn't exist?
Are you covering all bases so that you can carry on with your confusing posts?
Or is it just me that is confused? Its been known.

I never said bigfoot could go undetected in a small crowded area. (Are you sure your not confusing WGBH'S posts with mine? I may have said that. i am not 100% sure.).

I do think that it is more POSSIBLE for a population of hominids to go undetected in somewhere such as Tibet, Siberia, or Borneo, etc. just not north america.

[WGBH]

I would never call it a waste of time. More simply that its 15 minutes of fame are up. And really, that's not meant as a 'personal' attack. I'm not renouncing 'my love for you'...man, just coolin' it trying to help you see the obscure, but serious value of doing some genuine and honest 'critical thinking' in regards to not only your Bigfoot Encounter™, but any and all of them.

As for my being bored by it now; yeah. What happened was uniquely your experience, not ours, and the reality (above and beyond the 'reality' I mentioned above) is, there is no way possible for any of us to ever know what it was you actually saw and experienced that 'fateful day'. Thus, whatever it is you've convinced yourself it was...Bigfoot...and you have convinced yourself it was Bigfoot...then that's what it is. It's just that simple. Who am I (really) to 'insist' you saw something different? And if it's not 'just that simple', please tell us what it is you'd accept as a 'possible explanation' that does not include Bigfoot as a living, breathing, zoological entity.

I think that's why you're not genuinely taking Kit's (for example) often very astute and compelling arguments, notions, observations etc. to heart and honestly 'contemplating' them. You're in 'I saw a big hairy monster I did I did I did' mode and you have been all along. I'm just not sure what a forum of 'kinda certified' Bigfoot skeptics is really gonna do for you now except possibly exploit your seeming masochism.

And sorry, my previous post was a little rude. You gotta know I still love you man! ;)

I agree with you totally about my 15 mins of fame being up. Heck I would call it 5 mins. I do not like to talk about my encounter anyway. But, there are people here on this forum who seem to have questions or do not know me or my story. I just wanted to be fair to them. If I can come here looking for research ideas, it is only fair for me to answer questions. Other then that, I have no agenda here as some have said.

I have taken Kit's and other JREF members advice and I am seeking professional help regarding my sleep problems. I really do not want to discuss that any more in depth as it it personal.

[makaya325]

I agree with you totally about my 15 mins of fame being up. Heck I would call it 5 mins. I do not like to talk about my encounter anyway. But, there are people here on this forum who seem to have questions or do not know me or my story. I just wanted to be fair to them. If I can come here looking for research ideas, it is only fair for me to answer questions. Other then that, I have no agenda here as some have said.

I have taken Kit's and other JREF members advice and I am seeking professional help regarding my sleep problems. I really do not want to discuss that any more in depth as it it personal.

Have you ever wondered why all bigfoot sightings lake one specific thing? One word: Evidence.

[WGBH]

Would this be the area?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/283964a430d370a88d.jpg

Yes, I believe that could possibly be the general area, but as I said it was a long time ago and I cannot be possitive. Thank you for figuring out a way to post that because I could not.

[WGBH]

Have you ever wondered why all bigfoot sightings lake one specific thing? One word: Evidence.

You have an amazing ability to point out the obvious. But, keep up the good work! :D

[makaya325]

You have an amazing ability to point out the obvious. But, keep up the good work! :D

Do you feel your sighting is more credible than every other bigfoot sighting?

[WGBH]

Do you feel your sighting is more credible than every other bigfoot sighting?

How do you expect me to vouch for the credibility of all the other Bigfoot encounter reports? Are you serious?

[LONGTABBER PE]

How do you expect me to vouch for the credibility of all the other Bigfoot encounter reports? Are you serious?

Yes he is I'm afraid- I get the same questions

[makaya325]

Yes he is I'm afraid- I get the same questions

Do you know why? Because someone of your character arouses my curiousity.

I am amazed that an individual, such as yourself, can be so scientific and strict when it comes to standards of evidence. I still remember your "Acid test" when it comes to strength of evidence. Yet what really amazes me is that the same individual i described above is actually a PROPONENT of bigfoot, based on his two unsure encounters (80% sure) of the beast. It makes me feel relieved that there is someone a proponent can look up to, and that individual is you, Longtabber Pe.

Sincerly,
"Little Mak"

[Vortigern99]

I've only ever heard LT characterize his encounter as a "possible" sighting. In turn I would hesitate to characterize LT as a "BF proponent". I would not wish to speak for him, but I expect given his pronounced critical faculties that he allows alternate explanations for his sighting, such as "willful hoax by a third party", "misidentification of known species", etc., possibly coupled with any one or more known and documented human perceptual distortions such as hallucination, regional expectation, etc.

Perhaps LT would like to elucidate? I've not read any account of his sighting, so perhaps I should reserve commentary until I know more.

[makaya325]

I've only ever heard LT characterize his encounter as a "possible" sighting. In turn I would hesitate to characterize LT as a "BF proponent". I would not wish to speak for him, but I expect given his pronounced critical faculties that he allows alternate explanations for his sighting, such as "willful hoax by a third party", "misidentification of known species", etc., possibly coupled with any one or more known and documented human perceptual distortions such as hallucination, regional expectation, etc.

Perhaps LT would like to elucidate? I've not read any account of his sighting, so perhaps I should reserve commentary until I know more.

I found both of his not sure encounters quite fascinating, especially from a strict (Scientifically speaking) individual. To tell you the truth, I look up to him.

[desertgal]

I am amazed that an individual, such as yourself, can be so scientific and strict when it comes to standards of evidence.

Yeah, cause you wouldn't expect that of someone who has a lifetime career in law enforcement to his credit.

If you intended the above as an insult to LongTabber, you really need to knock it off. This is questionable, but I've still reported it, and I'll let the mods make the call. You've taken potshots at him before about being a BF proponent, and it got old the first time.

[WGBH]

What you may find amazing here at the JREF is that I get beaten up about this from BOTH sides of the fence, believer and scoftic. From believers I get "how can you doubt the credibility of this evidence because you are a witness to this creature." From the scoftics I get "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer."

Well, I am skeptical of evidence. I take my research very serious. I approach it in a scientific and skeptical way. I look at ALL other possibilities when investigating. I do not see that as the wrong way. This is the correct way and the way I was taught. I do not see Bigfoot behind every tree or hear one with every sound in the woods. Nor do the researchers I work with.

I DO NOT buy into the authenticity of the skookum cast, the Myakka photos, and most of the Bigfoot film footage. I KNOW that print castings, as interesting as they might be to some, ARE NOT evidence to the scientific community.

We need clear video or photo evidence or a specimen.

[makaya325]

Yeah, cause you wouldn't expect that of someone who has a lifetime career in law enforcement to his credit.

If you intended the above as an insult to LongTabber, you really need to knock it off. This is questionable, but I've still reported it, and I'll let the mods make the call. You've taken potshots at him before about being a BF proponent, and it got old the first time.

Why would you report it? This is not an insult to Longtabber. This is appraisal to long for helping me keep a little bit of faith left in bigfoot.

[desertgal]

Why would you report it? This is not an insult to Longtabber. This is appraisal to long for helping me keep a little bit of faith left in bigfoot.

Maybe...if so, you won't have a problem. But, you've gone after him before on the subject of his being a BF proponent. If this is sincere, great. If not, the mods have a heads up.

[makaya325]

Maybe...if so, you won't have a problem. But, you've gone after him before on the subject of his being a BF proponent. If this is sincere, great. If not, the mods have a heads up.

Ok, I see what your doing. I have no problem discussing it with the mods. I am just fascinated with Long's mindset of evidence because it is very interesting. A high ranking official like him makes me want to believe.

[JPK]

Wow. I have actually made it through this entire thread and found it very interesting. Thanks everyone. I think I figured some things out. Perhaps Bigfeet (is that the plural of BigFoot?), actually eat bears. Perhaps they eat just enough of them to keep the sightings of bears low but there are enough of them to sustain the BigFeet population. Just a thought.

[Skeptical Greg]

Do you know why? Because someone of your character arouses my curiousity.

I am amazed that an individual, such as yourself, can be so scientific and strict when it comes to standards of evidence. I still remember your "Acid test" when it comes to strength of evidence. Yet what really amazes me is that the same individual i described above is actually a PROPONENT of bigfoot, based on his two unsure encounters (80% sure) of the beast. It makes me feel relieved that there is someone a proponent can look up to, and that individual is you, Longtabber Pe.

Sincerly,
"Little Mak"
How many times now, has LT told you he does not wish to discuss his encounter ?

Once someone has told you they don't want to discuss something with you, you need to drop it.

Quit spamming all the Bigfoot threads..

[Vortigern99]

For the record, the word "scoftic" does not apply to me. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I hope that anyone who feels this term to be an inaccurate representation of their critical thought processes will speak up and out against the blanket use of this invented and derogatory term to describe "anyone who doesn't ascribe to woo claim x".

There is already a word to characterize my methods of discerning fact from conjecture, and that word is "skeptic". There is no need to invent a second term, especially one meant to be dismissive and derogatory, in order to replace a perfectly good, solid, functional English word.

My mind is open to all possibilities. Furthermore it is attuned to the discernment of verifiable, corroborated, quantifiable evidence over spurious, unsupported and unsupportable claims. Any claim to the contrary is to admit not knowing or understanding, and not caring to know or understand, the workings of my mind, my will, or my senses.

WGBH, I have never said "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer", nor even thought anything of the sort. I have never written or spoken a derogatory word against you. It is my opinion, after exchanging messages with you and observing your reaction to alternate explanations for what happened to you, that your mind is closed to anything but the "fact" that you saw a real bigfoot. You will not even consider other possibilities as viable alternatives. It is your mind that is closed, you who "scoff" at perfectly reasonable and rational explanations for certain events.

ETA: That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your final two paragraphs, below.


What you may find amazing here at the JREF is that I get beaten up about this from BOTH sides of the fence, believer and scoftic. From believers I get "how can you doubt the credibility of this evidence because you are a witness to this creature." From the scoftics I get "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer."

Well, I am skeptical of evidence. I take my research very serious. I approach it in a scientific and skeptical way. I look at ALL other possibilities when investigating. I do not see that as the wrong way. This is the correct way and the way I was taught. I do not see Bigfoot behind every tree or hear one with every sound in the woods. Nor do the researchers I work with.

I DO NOT buy into the authenticity of the skookum cast, the Myakka photos, and most of the Bigfoot film footage. I KNOW that print castings, as interesting as they might be to some, ARE NOT evidence to the scientific community.

We need clear video or photo evidence or a specimen.

[WGBH]

For the record, the word "scoftic" does not apply to me. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I hope that anyone who feels this term to be an inaccurate representation of their critical thought processes will speak up and out against the blanket use of this invented and derogatory term to describe "anyone who doesn't ascribe to woo claim x".

If it does not apply to you then don't sweat it. I never said it did.

There is already a word to characterize my methods of discerning fact from conjecture, and that word is "skeptic". There is no need to invent a second term, especially one meant to be dismissive and derogatory, in order to replace a perfectly good, solid, functional English word.

Dismissive and derogatory, such as Bigfoot enthusiast? or liar?

My mind is open to all possibilities. Furthermore it is attuned to the discernment of verifiable, corroborated, quantifiable evidence over spurious, unsupported and unsupportable claims. Any claim to the contrary is to admit not knowing or understanding, and not caring to know or understand, the workings of my mind, my will, or my senses.

You have an open mind, but you need evidence?Huh?

WGBH, I have never said "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer", nor even thought anything of the sort. I have never written or spoken a derogatory word against you. It is my opinion, after exchanging messages with you and observing your reaction to alternate explanations for what happened to you, that your mind is closed to anything but the "fact" that you saw a real bigfoot. You will not even consider other possibilities as viable alternatives. It is your mind that is closed, you who "scoff" at perfectly reasonable and rational explanations for certain events.

I did consider the explanations presented,I found them lacking. Sorry, that it seems to upset you so much. Never meant to hurt your feelings

ETA: That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your final two paragraphs, below.

Thanks

[Vortigern99]

If it does not apply to you then don't sweat it. I never said it did.

Fine. I'm setting the record straight in case there was any question, since you were not specific in your use of the term.

Dismissive and derogatory, such as Bigfoot enthusiast? or liar?

I have never called you a liar, nor have I ever thought it for longer than it takes to consider the possibility of something and then dismiss it. I do not believe you are lying about your encounter; I believe you are mistaken, and unwilling to consider alternate explanations for your experience. Recently I have gone on record as disagreeing with others who have opined that you're lying. Again, I hope that sets the record straight.

As to the term "Bigfoot enthusiast", I don't know that I've ever used that term with regard to you (it's not one I employ often), but if I have I don't really understand why you would find it offensive. When I was a BF proponent I would not have bristled at the term. "Enthusiast" just means someone who is interested or "enthusiastic" about the idea of BF. Insofar as you are haunted by your experience rather than pleased, I suppose I do begin to see why you object to the term. But in general, it is not considered an insult and, as kitakaze has recently shown, it's sometimes used by BF proponents/researchers to refer to themselves.

Either way, now that I know it offends you, I'll refrain from using it in regards to you.

You have an open mind, but you need evidence?Huh?

It occurs to me that you do not understand the methods of skepticism and critical thought. It is not a system of dismissiveness and outright rejection, but one of careful consideration of data. The foundation of this system of thinking is to accept the possibility that any given proposition might be valid, or it might be invalid. The deciding factor is evidence. As LONGTABBER once said to me, "Show me the data." Otherwise all you have is a "might be", a "maybe" and a "possibility". When the data at hand directly refutes that possibility, you can safely reject the likelihood of the proposition being valid.

In your case, WGBH, you have rejected the possibility that hallucination and/or some form of perceptual distortion caused you to see what you think you saw. Yet you have no evidenciary basis for this rejection. It's an emotional response, an argument based in personal incredulity. "I know what I saw was real, therefore it must be real." On the other hand, my own rejection of the validity of your sighting is based, not on an emotional, incredulous response, but on the careful examination of the claim compared to the biological likelihood of a breeding population of stinking 9' man-apes going undetected in a relatively small wilderness area of the eastern US, despite 50 years of searching by hundreds or thousands of seekers nationwide, and despite every other species of animal in the area having been catalogued and classified, down to the tiniest microbe. No scat, no hair, no bones, no fossil remains, no blood, no evidence of any kind that is not hoaxable and that can be independently verified as real and valid.

I would like BF to be real -- I really would! -- but the data says otherwise. It just isn't there.

I did consider the explanations presented,I found them lacking. Sorry, that it seems to upset you so much. Never meant to hurt your feelings

You're not hurting my feelings. Will you please quantify your response? How do you find them lacking? In what way can hallucination and/or perceptual distortion of some kind be safely removed from the list of possible explanations for your sighting? On what basis can you reject the idea that you hallucinated the event, esp given the fact that fatigue, isolation and stress -- all of which you've said at one time or another were facets of your experience -- are all known and documented precursors to hallucination?

[kitakaze]

From the PGF section of Melissa Hovey's SFB board removed from public view:

Incidently I've cancelled my subscription to the JREF. I came to the realization after observing the thread WGBH was participating in was deteroiating into the typical adolesent nonsense that JREF is famous for. I do however find it interesting that some of the sewer mongers of JREF are required to be mature and civilized here. So now at least its civilized sewer mongers.Crow is such a nice person. She is talking about Kitakaze and others being mean to me at the JREF. I can handle myself. I just ignore the people who are nasty to me. No big deal.

I wasn't aware I was being mean or nasty to you. I can pull up the many compliments and words of support I've been offering you but I don't think I'll find anything mean or nasty. I don't believe that not thinking you really saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape amidst the civilization of the Virginia/North Carolina state line qualifies as being mean or nasty. I mean, c'mon. Look at the place we're talking about. An alleged encounter in 1982 first reported in 1998 after a long bout of alcoholism and being discussed 27 years later. I think there is a lot of room for perceptual distortion there but that's just me. Your comment at SFB really doesn't seem fair to me. I'm a little let down that you would speak that way about me when I'm not around. I've liked you since we first got into constructive debate at you SFB and you told Melissa and others to chill out and realize I'm not trying to be insulting or make things personal when I am debating Bigfoot issues. Oh well, I still wish you luck on your road to freedom from irrational fear and nightmares.

I think you've seen now that log would disagree with being called nice:

Me nice? I just got tired of having to suffer those sludge heavers gladly anymore. The last time I was actually nice was on October 22 1998 lol! What passes for nice with me is my impeccibility.

So would I:

Damn this dump couldn't even keep it civil for two more pages. I know the usual suspects oh so well. But kid I've decided to cancel my subscription to this cesspool. Goodbye ****ers! See you in Hell!

John, maybe you or someone can pass on to log that despite her little spazzo meltdown flip-off to Serenity Now, that even moreso than the SFB, the JREF has rules regarding civility and enforces them fairly and rigourously. Unlike the SFB, the JREF does not allow cursing and profanity and also does not kick out people for civil and informed debate. You yourself abstained as an administrator from the pathetic, laughable, and intellectually cowardly decision to have me banned from your board and I respect that. For all your irrational fear of being in the woods, you are not half as cowardly as people like Melissa Hovey or Washingtonian. I know you don't agree with that opinion of mine but I'm sure you can see where it comes from.

[WGBH]

If it does not apply to you then don't sweat it. I never said it did.

Fine. I'm setting the record straight in case there was any question, since you were not specific in your use of the term.

Dismissive and derogatory, such as Bigfoot enthusiast? or liar?

I have never called you a liar, nor have I ever thought it for longer than it takes to consider the possibility of something and then dismiss it. I do not believe you are lying about your encounter; I believe you are mistaken, and unwilling to consider alternate explanations for your experience. Recently I have gone on record as disagreeing with others who have opined that you're lying. Again, I hope that sets the record straight.


Vort, I know you never called me a liar, but I get called a liar constantly.

As to the term "Bigfoot enthusiast", I don't know that I've ever used that term with regard to you (it's not one I employ often), but if I have I don't really understand why you would find it offensive. When I was a BF proponent I would not have bristled at the term. "Enthusiast" just means someone who is interested or "enthusiastic" about the idea of BF. Insofar as you are haunted by your experience rather than pleased, I suppose I do begin to see why you object to the term. But in general, it is not considered an insult and, as kitakaze has recently shown, it's sometimes used by BF proponents/researchers to refer to themselves.

Either way, now that I know it offends you, I'll refrain from using it in regards to you.

Thank you for finding the words I was looking for. I am not enthusiastic about Bigfoot. It is something I must do.


You have an open mind, but you need evidence?Huh?

It occurs to me that you do not understand the methods of skepticism and critical thought. It is not a system of dismissiveness and outright rejection, but one of careful consideration of data. The foundation of this system of thinking is to accept the possibility that any given proposition might be valid, or it might be invalid. The deciding factor is evidence. As LONGTABBER once said to me, "Show me the data." Otherwise all you have is a "might be", a "maybe" and a "possibility". When the data at hand directly refutes that possibility, you can safely reject the likelihood of the proposition being valid.

Vort, I cannot show you data from a encounter that happened to me over 27 years ago. Heck, I am not even sure that I can find the exact area that it happened at. I am helpless to do anything but stand here and tell what happened to me and hope for the best.

In your case, WGBH, you have rejected the possibility that hallucination and/or some form of perceptual distortion caused you to see what you think you saw. Yet you have no evidenciary basis for this rejection. It's an emotional response, an argument based in personal incredulity. "I know what I saw was real, therefore it must be real." On the other hand, my own rejection of the validity of your sighting is based, not on an emotional, incredulous response, but on the careful examination of the claim compared to the biological likelihood of a breeding population of stinking 9' man-apes going undetected in a relatively small wilderness area of the eastern US, despite 50 years of searching by hundreds or thousands of seekers nationwide, and despite every other species of animal in the area having been catalogued and classified, down to the tiniest microbe. No scat, no hair, no bones, no fossil remains, no blood, no evidence of any kind that is not hoaxable and that can be independently verified as real and valid.

I would like BF to be real -- I really would! -- but the data says otherwise. It just isn't there.

I would like for it not to be real, but it was. It was right there in front of me. For me to say that it was a hallucination would be lying to myself.

I did consider the explanations presented,I found them lacking. Sorry, that it seems to upset you so much. Never meant to hurt your feelings

You're not hurting my feelings. Will you please quantify your response? How do you find them lacking? In what way can hallucination and/or perceptual distortion of some kind be safely removed from the list of possible explanations for your sighting? On what basis can you reject the idea that you hallucinated the event, esp given the fact that fatigue, isolation and stress -- all of which you've said at one time or another were facets of your experience -- are all known and documented precursors to hallucination?

I reject it not only on my opinion, but the opinion of a professional. Please do not expect me to comment on it publicly.

[WGBH]

I wasn't aware I was being mean or nasty to you. I can pull up the many compliments and words of support I've been offering you but I don't think I'll find anything mean or nasty.

That is the problem Kit, you can't even recognize the hurtful things you say. Before you ask me to "prove my claims" by copying and pasting them, I am not interested in that argument, I can deal with it. You know when I lost my temper and why I did it. I told you right here on this forum. Don't play coy.

I posted that quote on SFB in a attempt to diffuse a situation that Crow may have started that I did not want. I was making light of the situation by saying I am OK and I can handle myself here on the JREF fine. That is all I intended. It was not a attack on you and it was a mistake to use your name.


I don't believe that not thinking you really saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape amidst the civilization of the Virginia/North Carolina state line qualifies as being mean or nasty. I mean, c'mon. Look at the place we're talking about. An alleged encounter in 1982 first reported in 1998 after a long bout of alcoholism and being discussed 27 years later. I think there is a lot of room for perceptual distortion there but that's just me.

You have made this opinion very clear. I get it.

Your comment at SFB really doesn't seem fair to me.

I understand, but see my above comment.


I'm a little let down that you would speak that way about me when I'm not around. I've liked you since we first got into constructive debate at you SFB and you told Melissa and others to chill out and realize I'm not trying to be insulting or make things personal when I am debating Bigfoot issues.

But you are not around there Kit. You were thrown out for behavior not wanted on that forum by its owner. The fact that you or I may not agree with those rules is not the point. If you want to post there you abide by them.

You have no idea how many times I attempted to defuse the situation regarding you and the rest of the admin. I argued on your behalf on the admin forums constantly. Only for you to turn around and do the same things you were warned about again and again. You took it out of my hands Kit. News flash, If it was not for me you would have been tossed long before you were.


Oh well, I still wish you luck on your road to freedom from irrational fear and nightmares.

Thanks


John, maybe you or someone can pass on to log that despite her little spazzo meltdown flip-off to Serenity.


No Kit, I DO NOT like to pass things from forum to forum, but I was forced to above.

[tsig]

I reject it not only on my opinion, but the opinion of a professional. Please do not expect me to comment on it publicly.


You just did. Hint: If you don't want to talk about things on a public form then don't mention them.

[WGBH]

You just did. Hint: If you don't want to talk about things on a public form then don't mention them.

Hint: I meant the diagnosis.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I've only ever heard LT characterize his encounter as a "possible" sighting. In turn I would hesitate to characterize LT as a "BF proponent". I would not wish to speak for him, but I expect given his pronounced critical faculties that he allows alternate explanations for his sighting, such as "willful hoax by a third party", "misidentification of known species", etc., possibly coupled with any one or more known and documented human perceptual distortions such as hallucination, regional expectation, etc.

Perhaps LT would like to elucidate? I've not read any account of his sighting, so perhaps I should reserve commentary until I know more.

I guess so simply for the non BFF posters here so my "position" is clear and the QUALIFICATIONS that go along with it. ( there are very narrow goalposts)

I ignored Mak's repeated requests simply because of the source- not because of anyone elses inquiry here or I have issue discussing them. ( plus the thread space they would take up)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3996&st=693

Neither situation was a "positive" ID of a creature referred to as a BF. ( both incidents cover about 2 pages there)

I can rule out a human/hoax/prank on the first one simply because of the ice, speed, "unique" sound and size.( and I doubt a human would have made it thru that hail of magnum duck loads and a few 00 rounds without screaming, dying or trying to communicate)

That one is rather unique simply because of the timing ( late 60's early 70's- not really sure of the year) because I'm not certain ( being in coastal SC during those days) I even knew what a BF was or even heard the term.

I do remember the term BF didnt really register until several months later when prints were in the paper and there was a short article. ( i was thinking bear even tho that chance is remote- we did get one every decade or so)

I also question my own memory because of degradation, looking thru a kids eyes, nowhere near the training/experience/knowledge I do now, fear factor,etc.

I do know that nothing has indicated even a possible situation of a similar encounter since then from myself or dozens of deer/duck hunters who literally live there and hunt. Like the PGF, after 40 odd years, one would think there would be multiple events in the same area.

The second incident was a little different because of the location, circumstances, equipment and number of trained people observing the incident.

That one is a little more difficult to discount. It registered on thermals, NVG's by trained observers, was observed for a significant amount of time, walked by 2 separate objects giving a reasonably accurate height estimate and acted "animal like". ( like it was pulling up grass clumps etc- ie articulating unlike one might expect a human drunk on a range would do)

Downside is, fuzzy images from the old equipment, we didnt go look

Thats pretty much it. They were what they were and nothing more.

I try to make my position clear that those 2 experiences do put me in the BF "proponent" category simply because I acknowledge the legitimate POSSIBILITY that such a creature exists. ( since others have tried to hang me on this before, let me put it like this. My "human" half is about 51-49 in favor of such a creature existing- my "vulcan" half is about 99.9-.1 against it. When the 2 come together my vulcan half prevails)

That said, "evidence"?- my accounts have no more meaning, evidenciary support or legitimate scientific value than all the rest. I couldnt "prove" them with a gun to my head. I acknowledge that freely before anyone inquires and i'm good with that.

Just because I have had 2 questionable experiences ( I've had many actually over the years in various areas but only those 2 have a BF as a possible answer) is not license to go off stating my experiences as a BF and nothing else nor does it legitimately default to BF simply because in the absence of actual certainty thats a "popular" answer. Its also not an excuse for me to invalidate my training,experience and professional standards because at some level it "suits" me.

See, with me, I dont know ( or care) if BF exists or not. I have no dog in the fight like these "researchers" do. I'm not going to mourn if it doesnt or alter my life if it does. If at some point,either/both of my incidents turn out to be something else- oh well, I just thought i saw something that might have been a BF but was mistaken. End of incident.

I have no option but to judge my own 2 NOT SURE encounters by the same yardstick I judge everything else by and they simply come up INCONCLUSIVE. ( just like all the rest that are not obvious fakes)

The bottom line is that there is ZERO reliable PHYSICAL evidence of such a creature, anecdotal accounts from a zillion witnesses ( MINE included) carry extremely little weight on the whole issue (10,000 x 0 still equals zero) and based on all known biological examples the probable existance of such a creature even under ideal circumstances is very remote. None of that changes because I happen to have had 2 situations that MAY have been a BF to ME.

OK Mak- you happy now? I've "discussed it here".

Anyone has any further inquiries, feel free to ask. They were what they were ( and not what they werent)

[Drewbot]

LT is basically a kook, with a logic streak.

He can't explain his contact, but his logical nature doesn't allow him to say it is an UNCLASSIFIED BROWN HAIRY PRIMATE WITH STANKINESS TO HIGH HEAVEN.

[Marduk]

Yes I was hoping it was my friend and his father because I was ready to leave. I had already been sitting there 4 hours. I was not terrified until I realized what it was I was witnessing.

Before the internet age, I had no idea who to report a Bigfoot encounter to. I googled Bigfoot one day in 1998 and I saw the B.F.R.O. web site and filled out the sighting report form. A few weeks later I was contacted by a researcher and interviewed. After that I never talked about it again until 3 years ago.

wait, it was 16 years until you reported this to a group collecting reports and they accepted it. thats the problem right there, its not the people seeing enigmas in the forest who are the issue, there are always enigmas in forests, its what theyre for, its the fact that the groups collating the evidence have no rational scepticism whatever. Please go to your local police station and tell them you'd like to report someone for stealing your wallet 16 years earlier and see what they say.

[William Parcher]

I can rule out a human/hoax/prank on the first one simply because of the ice, speed, "unique" sound and size.( and I doubt a human would have made it thru that hail of magnum duck loads and a few 00 rounds without screaming, dying or trying to communicate)


Why would you expect that a Bigfoot wouldn't scream or die after being shot up like that?

[Drewbot]

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?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Why would you expect that a Bigfoot wouldn't scream or die after being shot up like that?

"It" did-what I was referring to was screaming in "English" or other attempts to communicate in a human manner like 'ahhhhh, dont shoot".

For that matter, whatever it was could have ran and dropped dead a few hundred yards away too.

[WGBH]

wait, it was 16 years until you reported this to a group collecting reports and they accepted it. thats the problem right there, its not the people seeing enigmas in the forest who are the issue, there are always enigmas in forests, its what theyre for, its the fact that the groups collating the evidence have no rational scepticism whatever. Please go to your local police station and tell them you'd like to report someone for stealing your wallet 16 years earlier and see what they say.

Witnessing a Bigfoot is not a crime last time I checked. It is not a civic duty to report it and no statute of limitations.

[Marduk]

Witnessing a Bigfoot is not a crime last time I checked. It is not a civic duty to report it and no statute of limitations.

so you don't agree that a story 16 years old told by one person without any evidence is anecdotal, really, take yourself out of the situation and look at it again

;)

[LONGTABBER PE]

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?

>>>but why would you be carrying Magnum Duck Loads, AND 00 Buck shot?

Because we were DUCK hunting. Now in SC, duck/deer season occupy the same space and our swamps are chocked full of deer. Its the norm to carry a 5 pack in your shirt( for shotgun hunters) for the occasional swamp deer because ducks in the swamp only fly for about 30 min post daybreak- then switch loads and head to the stand. The only legal caveat is that you cant shoot them from a boat ( or any other vehicle) or when they are in the water.

( now, we have "tree stands" [ blinds] off the water where we do both and make a day of it but that wasnt the spot we were at that day because of school)

>>>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

It does and on a military installation, in uniform etc- you would NOT lock and load on ANY target unless it was a DIRECT threat to life or government protected property. ( deadly force is authorized under those circumstances) and if you do- you DAMN WELL BETTER have proof, witnesses etc or Levenworth is in your near future under UCMJ rules so that ruled out taking a "pot shot".

Our first thought was in fact a member of the cadre "checking in" on us. ( its the norm for some night "ops' to wind up at the local tavern and its normal to be "checked up" on)

It wasnt until it went around the vehicle and the size was noted that it even became anything more that either cadre or a drunk dude wandering on a range. I can effectively rule out cadre or other official because we noted we observed a target and nothing was ever noted. ( they always tell you AFTER THE FACT they were there- especially if you were "NOT" there LOL)

Now, a drunk or aimlessly lost civilian- possibly but he would have to been very tall- cant effectively rule that out other than to say its a several mile long walk to where we were. Long way to walk just for the purpose to do "nothing".

Sister ODA screwing with us- very probable and cannot be ruled out either but "normally" when they do things like that- theres a punchline and if none, they "probe" to see if you actually saw the prank in the first place.

None of that occurred but again- cannot be ruled out.

[Correa Neto]

LT is basically a kook, with a logic streak.

He can't explain his contact, but his logical nature doesn't allow him to say it is an UNCLASSIFIED BROWN HAIRY PRIMATE WITH STANKINESS TO HIGH HEAVEN.
Reminds me of this song (note the Historian/Beckjordian-like bits):

there was a guy
an under water guy who controlled the sea
got killed by ten million pounds of sludge
from new york and new jersey
this monkey's gone to heaven

the creature in the sky
got sucked in ahole
now there's a hole in the sky
and the ground's not cold
and if the ground's not cold
everything is gonna burn
we'll all take turns
i'll get mine, too
this monkey's gone to haven

rock me joe!

if man is 5 [3x]
then the devil is 6 [5x]
then god is 7 [3x]
this monkey's gone to heaven

[WGBH]

LT,

You mentioned a noise in the first encounter. Do you mean a scream? Would you call it a scream ,howl or whoop? Can you desribe the volume? Did you get a glimpse of the color of whatever it was?

[WGBH]

LT is basically a kook, with a logic streak.

He can't explain his contact, but his logical nature doesn't allow him to say it is an UNCLASSIFIED BROWN HAIRY PRIMATE WITH STANKINESS TO HIGH HEAVEN.

LT, if you don't mind a tad a speculation. If you would have had a good look and it appeared to you to be a Bigfoot. Would you have told anyone?

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT,

You mentioned a noise in the first encounter. Do you mean a scream? Would you call it a scream ,howl or whoop? Can you desribe the volume? Did you get a glimpse of the color of whatever it was?

Sure

>>>Do you mean a scream? Would you call it a scream ,howl or whoop? Can you desribe the volume?

What one would call it is somewhat subjective but it was short ( best guess 1.5 seconds max) and went low/gutteral ( like a growl in a barrel) to shrill.

>>>Did you get a glimpse of the color of whatever it was?

Not fully discernable- where we were at in relation and given the rising sun angle and eyes adjusting- there was only 1 "hole" where we got an unobstructed view and that was just for a fleeting second. When we were in the "haul ass" mode- neither one of was even attempting to look back.

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT, if you don't mind a tad a speculation. If you would have had a good look and it appeared to you to be a Bigfoot. Would you have told anyone?

absolutely. If I was certain it was a BF, I would say so. Public opinion be damned.

[William Parcher]

LT, does the person who was hunting with you feel the same about this "thing"? Are they also now involved in the Bigfootery phenomenon?

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT, does the person who was hunting with you feel the same about this "thing"? Are they also now involved in the Bigfootery phenomenon?

Until I went in the Army, all Robin would do is deer hunt or bird hunt in open field and never went without an arsenal. He refused to even discuss it. ( even with me)

I moved and havent seen or heard from him since I left so cant say.

[William Parcher]

After your encounter, did you ever use the word "Bigfoot" in conversation with Robin?

[LONGTABBER PE]

After your encounter, did you ever use the word "Bigfoot" in conversation with Robin?

Actually, after his brother and sister told us how he "weirded out"- I never broached the subject after that week.

he got back to normal pretty quick except when it was time to go hunting- nothing in the dark ( coons etc), no dense woods,no "swamp" camping ( places like Santee were good) and toted enough firepower to take out a squad.

[William Parcher]

Actually, after his brother and sister told us how he "weirded out"- I never broached the subject after that week.


Did they say he weirded out because he encountered a large animal unknown to science that was also able to withstand the hits?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Did they say he weirded out because he encountered a large animal unknown to science that was also able to withstand the hits?

They didnt offer much information- I didnt ask

I was a bit "unnerved" myself but at that time, my thoughts were more focused on a bear. It was somewhere around Spring when the article appeared and BF really entered my mind.

I can tell you that none of us gave the "theory of BF" or science or anything else much thought back then. It was basically if we ever see anything like it again- we were going to kill it.

[William Parcher]

Did it look like a humanoid biped?

[William Parcher]

I'll put the important part of your encounter here for discussion...


Anyway- dawn came and the ducks flew- when we fired out first rounds ( simultaneously at a flock)

There was like an "explosion" of water, ice breaking and a scream that I thought was like a werewolf or something ( growl howl as best i can describe it)

We could clearly see the commotion thru the swamp as being maybe 50 yards from us and saw an "object" on dry land ( we know this area very well and down to the inch- it was in a place where we also make blinds- kinda like an island sandbar with the creek split on both sides- but deep enough to need a boat to safely get to)- it "moved' back and forth and was growling/grunting ( not like the initial loud one)

We didnt know whether it was man or beast and since we shot "up" ( at ducks) we didnt believe we shot somebody.

we called to it- no answers but it was basically still- then Robin got smart and challenged it ( as if it were a man saying he was trespassing and fired another shot in the air)- it hit the creek and it was CLEAR it was sloshing water and coming in our direction ( estimated 30 yards when we saw the "huge' outline with the daybreak and sun behind us)

I wont lie to you- we were scared @@@@less and literally opened up with a hail of #4 shot from 2 automatics- dead center mass of the incoming "thing"- it kinda slowed

Robin said @@@@ this and loaded up with 00B ( we always carry 5 rounds or more when duck hunting for the occasional creek deer and the browning A-5 allows to change the chamber round)- he said if it came any closer he was going to kill it. he yelled that he had buckshot now and if it came [ still thinking this was a man but maybe a bear- even tho there are none in SC]

it took about 2 steps, Robin saif OK MF and fired 3 rounds center mass- ( i was now ready for round 2 if needed)- we heard "thocking" ( as if shot striking trees and maybe a body) and this thing went "ape@@@@" ( no other way to describe it) except this time it went right ( to us but its left) and was making all kinds of fuss and growling, screaming and cleared the creek ( about 25 ft) with a big splash spraying wayer all over and was coming down the creekbank ( in our general direction but there was a long lazy turn)

we knew we were about 100 yds from the cabin and almost all of it was land or hard ice- we hit the haul ass mode ( imagine 2 kids running in chest waders) ( busted out asses a few times)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Did it look like a humanoid biped?

kinda/sorta/yes and no

I wouldnt use the word humanoid by my definition- there was nothing humanistic about it.

Biped- at the brief moment I got a quick profile of it - it looked like it was running upright.

However-that view was a fleeting second- after that it was time to leave

[William Parcher]

kinda/sorta/yes and no

I wouldnt use the word humanoid by my definition- there was nothing humanistic about it.

Maybe I should have said hominoid. Upright, bipedal locomotion with the same basic body form as a human.

So the entire time you watched it advance on you (50 yds to 30 yds) it didn't appear to be upright and bipedal? Only for the brief moment it was in profile?

[Correa Neto]

LT, do you think its possible it could have been a buck elk/moose charging or walking head-on towards you? Do you think the "bipedal" impression you had could have been created by any combinations between obstacles avoiding full sight of the "creature" with some expectations of it being a man?

Now, on another line, would you feel offended if a skeptic (or a bigfoot investigator/enthusiast/etc.) raised the possibility that your sighting:
a. Had a number of details changed and/or added as time passed
b. Was a fabrication

I'm sure you know the message I'm trying to pass here...

[LONGTABBER PE]

Maybe I should have said hominoid. Upright, bipedal locomotion with the same basic body form as a human.

So the entire time you watched it advance on you (50 yds to 30 yds) it didn't appear to be upright and bipedal? Only for the brief moment it was in profile?

No clear unobstructed field of view and the sun was just starting to rise as well as shadows and such.

I can tell you this- "IF" there had been a clear field of view from that distance advancing and it looked like a "monster" whatever- I would have been long gone before it got close enough for an altercation.

The brush and densly dead vineage etc is the main reason the incident played out like it did. I can only speak for myself but I knew the difference between shooting a person and an animal and it was drilled into me from day 1 about being sure of your target before you fire because you cant take a bullet back.

I was more hesitant about shooting that Robin was.

It was after the warning shot and challenge that things got "serious". At that point, i was certain it wasnt a deer and if it was a man- he intended harm.

I remember deciding that whatever happened, it if came after that- I was going to shoot to kill it.

[WGBH]

absolutely. If I was certain it was a BF, I would say so. Public opinion be damned.

Impressive LT, I wish I had your courage back then.

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT, do you think its possible it could have been a buck elk/moose charging or walking head-on towards you? Do you think the "bipedal" impression you had could have been created by any combinations between obstacles avoiding full sight of the "creature" with some expectations of it being a man?

Now, on another line, would you feel offended if a skeptic (or a bigfoot investigator/enthusiast/etc.) raised the possibility that your sighting:
a. Had a number of details changed and/or added as time passed
b. Was a fabrication

I'm sure you know the message I'm trying to pass here...

>>>do you think its possible it could have been a buck elk/moose charging or walking head-on towards you?

we dont have either native to coastal SC. Even tho they both exist, the odds of either being in that part of the world are about equal to it being a BF.

>>>Do you think the "bipedal" impression you had could have been created by any combinations between obstacles avoiding full sight of the "creature" with some expectations of it being a man?

No but for this reason. I never got a clear waist down view forward so bi/quad/onelegged limp/pogo stick never even entered my mind or thought process. It was just a "large mass" moving closer making racket in the ice/water dunnage etc with the noises it was making. It was the inability to distinguish that made me hesitate as much as i did.

That "profile shot" ( eye view) was literally maybe as long as a good blink and then we was "moving".

Sorry I'm not more detailed but thats about all i remember that i feel is reliable. bear, Bigfoot, Werewolf or the boogie man- it was time to haul ass at that point and thats all i was concerned with

>>>Now, on another line, would you feel offended if a skeptic (or a bigfoot investigator/enthusiast/etc.) raised the possibility that your sighting:
a. Had a number of details changed and/or added as time passed

No, I'm here arent I? I invite questions- the harder and more pointed the better. The rules dont change because its my day on the stand. Details DO change and memories do change over time- including mine.

>>>b. Was a fabrication

been there too and in all honesty, there is no "proof" ( physical) and i doubt I could locate witnesses so its perfectly normal and logical for the belief that this is a fabrication to be held by many. I dont take it personally because its reasonable and if the situation was reversed- thats the FIRST thing I would attempt to root out. Its illogical for me to hope/pray/wish anyone ( even if this wasnt a "skeptical" board) to take such an account at face value on the strength of my word. You were not there. I know what happened.

That said, again I try to be accurate and have to state it was NOT a confirmed "bigfoot".

[LONGTABBER PE]

Impressive LT, I wish I had your courage back then.

Only if that were true LOL

Theres nothing impressive or courageous about it- its just being raised in the deep redneck "in your face" south. ( a country boy is gonna tell you like it is and if you dont like it or dont want to hear it- dont ask)

[William Parcher]

No, I'm here arent I? I invite questions- the harder and more pointed the better. The rules dont change because its my day on the stand. Details DO change and memories do change over time- including mine.

Its illogical for me to hope/pray/wish anyone ( even if this wasnt a "skeptical" board) to take such an account at face value on the strength of my word. You were not there. I know what happened.


Your story and that of John both have an unfortunate situation. The other witnesses are unavailable for questioning. This deprives the rest of us from having the ability to learn that your story is fabricated or embellished, or not. I'm not insinuating anything here, but the following are two things we cannot hear from the others...

1) John's friends say that he never told them he saw a Bigfoot and there were no high school bully fights because of it.

2) Robin says that you both clearly saw it as a bear and announced it to each other. There was no doubt about that. He says that his "weirding out" was some kind of PTSD after nearly being killed by a bear... just like you.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Your story and that of John both have an unfortunate situation. The other witnesses are unavailable for questioning. This deprives the rest of us from having the ability to learn that your story is fabricated or embellished, or not. I'm not insinuating anything here, but the following are two things we cannot hear from the others...

1) John's friends say that he never told them he saw a Bigfoot and there were no high school bully fights because of it.

2) Robin says that you both clearly saw it as a bear and announced it to each other. There was no doubt about that. He says that his "weirding out" was some kind of PTSD after nearly being killed by a bear... just like you.

>>>Your story and that of John both have an unfortunate situation. The other witnesses are unavailable for questioning. This deprives the rest of us from having the ability to learn that your story is fabricated or embellished, or not. I'm not insinuating anything here, but the following are two things we cannot hear from the others...

Agreed- thats valid, factual and reasonable. I see and understand ( and agree) with any who have or voice such reservations.

>>>1) John's friends say that he never told them he saw a Bigfoot and there were no high school bully fights because of it.

I cant say- I didnt experience that

>>>2) Robin says that you both clearly saw it as a bear and announced it to each other. There was no doubt about that. He says that his "weirding out" was some kind of PTSD after nearly being killed by a bear... just like you

Yes, at the time- bear was the predominate thought. Now, he was big into monster movies like the rest of us were and I dont know where his thoughts were so I can only speak for myself.

At that time, neither of us had seen a bear in the wild so we were not exactly a Hunster.

It really didnt get to me until we went back in full daylight and walked around that a bear didnt fully "fit" ( for lack of a better description)

It was the first set of ice "holes" that really stood out. They were not "side by side" as one would expect for a 4 legged animal and the thickness of the ice.

Then there were those noises it make. I'm no bear expert by far but I've never heard that noise from one since in the wild,zoo or TV.

Its one of those things where you tell yourself "yeah it was a bear" but it just didnt all fit what little evidence of passage remained.

[William Parcher]

LT, thanks for the further comments. But even these cannot be confirmed without Robin. We can't know how strenuously he might disagree with your current testimony. We can't hear him say that you "weirded out" because later you started thinking you may have encountered a Bigfoot when instead you guys shot a bear.

[WGBH]

LT, thanks for the further comments. But even these cannot be confirmed without Robin. We can't know how strenuously he might disagree with your current testimony. We can't hear him say that you "weirded out" because later you started thinking you may have encountered a Bigfoot when instead you guys shot a bear.

Question in regard to this. Are sightings with multiple witnesses more credible to the sceptical? The investigation I went on last weekend had 3 witnesses.

If LT could locate Robin or if I was not alone for my encounter what would be the difference in attitude here?

[Correa Neto]

Suppose Tom Biscardi, Ivan Marx, Moneymaker and the GA Boyz claimed to have shared a bigfoot sighting.

Would you consider their sighting report as being more credible than LT's or yours?

[William Parcher]

Question in regard to this. Are sightings with multiple witnesses more credible to the sceptical? The investigation I went on last weekend had 3 witnesses.

Generally, multiple witnesses will support credibility. Exceptions are when the party has confirmation bias going on.

Did you guys see a Bigfoot last weekend?

If LT could locate Robin or if I was not alone for my encounter what would be the difference in attitude here?

It's not about attitude. It's about the testimony of the other witnesses. The inquiry would change if these witnesses were available, but nothing said would guarantee that a Bigfoot was seen. The question of Bigfoot's existence cannot be boiled down to simply believing what somebody says, or even what a group of people say. But you already know that as you have agreed that biological material (body or parts) is necessary for confirmation.

[WGBH]

Generally, multiple witnesses will support credibility. Exceptions are when the party has confirmation bias going on.

Did you guys see a Bigfoot last weekend?

Nope, but the witness report was interesting and we will be investigating the area more. The mosquitos and tics were feasting on me too.

If I were ever to see a Bigfoot again. I am pretty sure I would not talk about it. :D


It's not about attitude. It's about the testimony of the other witnesses. The inquiry would change if these witnesses were available, but nothing said would guarantee that a Bigfoot was seen. The question of Bigfoot's existence cannot be boiled down to simply believing what somebody says, or even what a group of people say. But you already know that as you have agreed that biological material (body or parts) is necessary for confirmation.

I understand that William. To prove this animal to science we do need a specimen. But I was asking for a personal opinion. Are multiple witness sightings more credible?

[William Parcher]

To prove this animal to science we do need a specimen.

To prove this animal to the whole world, not just science.


But I was asking for a personal opinion. Are multiple witness sightings more credible?

Personal opinion? Multiple-witness Bigfoot encounters are more interesting, not more credible. Seven guys say they saw a Bigfoot. They all agree and they seem to be credible people. Cool. But, does Bigfoot actually exist?

[WGBH]

To prove this animal to the whole world, not just science.




Personal opinion? Multiple-witness Bigfoot encounters are more interesting, not more credible. Seven guys say they saw a Bigfoot. They all agree and they seem to be credible people. Cool. But, does Bigfoot actually exist?

What if the seven guys were 4 cops, a judge, a priest and Longtabber? :D
Would that be credible? Just kidding, yeah I should have said interesting.

[William Parcher]

What if the seven guys were 4 cops, a judge, a priest and Longtabber? :D Would that be credible?


Which one shoots the Bigfoot? :D

[Skeptical Greg]

4 Cops, a judge, a priest and Longtabber are sitting in a bar ...


O.k., somebody else provide the rest of the joke ...

[William Parcher]

a Bigfoot walks in and orders a Pabst Blue Ribbon.

[Blackdog]

Father O’Malley gets up, walks past the cop’s table and falls flat on his face into Judge Yancy’s lap.
Judge Yancy jumps up and says, “OK which one of you guys tripped the poor Father?

“Not me”, says Officer Bob.
“Me neither”, says Officer Ken
“I didn’t do it”, says Officer Bill
“I didn’t do it, I was tying my shoe”, says Officer Simon

Longtabber looks down at Officer Simon’s feet and says to Judge Yancy,
“It’s obviously a case of (you guessed it) …………..Big Foot Si, Yance!”

***Ducks head, dodging rotten tomatoes**** :boxedin:

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT, thanks for the further comments. But even these cannot be confirmed without Robin. We can't know how strenuously he might disagree with your current testimony. We can't hear him say that you "weirded out" because later you started thinking you may have encountered a Bigfoot when instead you guys shot a bear.

In the most literal sense, you still wouldnt be able to "confirm" it because theres no way to know or differentiate between our mutual event or we just "got our stories straight".

What would serve better to confirm it would be the guys who saw what little "evidence" in the ice was left ( or if there was any forensic type evidence- but we were kids and this was like 72-ish)
Even then, all you could "literally" say was "something" occurred.

As far as the "weired out" ( 70's term LOL)- Thats what was told to me. I just noticed a few noted different behaviours.

From John
>>>Question in regard to this. Are sightings with multiple witnesses more credible to the sceptical?

The answer to that is as long as it is wide. Any investigator will tell you the best and most accurate witness ( from a reliability and bias standpoint) is one who is disassociated from an event. Thats not always possible.

Regardless of 1 or 100 witnesses, evidenciary support trumps them all

>>>If LT could locate Robin or if I was not alone for my encounter what would be the difference in attitude here?

Done properly, there should NOT be. The process never changes. The "attitude" should always be one of deliberate neutrality and a "just the facts" mindset and methodology. Anything short of that is setting the stage for a faulty investigation. Theres nothing personal attached to it- thats just the way its done.

From William

>>>Personal opinion? Multiple-witness Bigfoot encounters are more interesting, not more credible. Seven guys say they saw a Bigfoot. They all agree and they seem to be credible people. Cool. But, does Bigfoot actually exist?

Well, you can say credible and not lose any horsepower. A lot of times, people group them together but in reality they are different.

Assuming you dont have a case of bias/agenda ( a major factor in and of itself) its normal to have multiple "credible" witnesses who are sincere and by all available observations are telling the truth as they BELIEVE it to be. ( that 1 word is the kicker)

Where a skilled investigator draws the line is that individual credibility and ACCURACY are 2 different things.

Its like a car wreck. Lots of people saw the gross ( accident/ perp speeding away etc) but the colors of the car/description of the perp often vary all over the place.

Credibility goes to the gross primarily ( the accident did in fact occur)- accuracy is much more difficult.

[makaya325]

LT, thank you for sharing your two not sure encounters of bigfoot. I would like to know two things about both of them.

1. Did you notice any facial features or physical build on the creature/creatures you saw?

2. Allegdly, the creature sounded like a "Growl in a barrel". That must have been shell shocking for both yourself and Robin. Did both encounters ever traumatize you? Would you consider either one a major impact on your Bigfoot stance today?

[tsig]

Hint: I meant the diagnosis.

Yet you say that his diagnosis validates your BF sighting. So once again we just accept your word?

[WGBH]

Yet you say that his diagnosis validates your BF sighting. So once again we just accept your word?

I never said that, sorry if you are confused. I am not looking for anyone to validate my BF sighting and I don't care what you accept.

[kitakaze]

What you may find amazing here at the JREF is that I get beaten up about this from BOTH sides of the fence, believer and scoftic. From believers I get "how can you doubt the credibility of this evidence because you are a witness to this creature." From the scoftics I get "you cannot be skeptical because you are a witness and believer."

John, what is a scoftic? Who are these people? Can you name three? Are we all scoftics here? Am I a scoftic? Do I unfairly dismiss legitimate propositions and evidence unfairly without research and due consideration? Is there some unreasonable and irrational behaviour going on with me?

Dismissive and derogatory, such as Bigfoot enthusiast? or liar?

John, you may object to the term "Bigfoot enthusiast" but it is correct and perfectly valid. An enthusiast is one who is ardently absorbed in an interest or pursuit. Don't believe me? Look it up. That's you. If the term bothers you, I can call you a Bigfoot searcher, proponent, believer, or Susan if you ask me to. I will not call you a Bigfoot researcher because poking around in the woods looking for Bigfoot is not researching an animal. Ask any wildlife biologist or zoologist. You were the mod and now admin of a Bigfoot discussion board call the "Search For Bigfoot". What does being a mod on a Bigfoot discussion board have to do with finding Bigfoot? You attend various Bigfoot conventions. You participate in various Bigfoot radio shows. Before you had friends to pull you away, you were a Tom Biscardi supporter.

For you searching for Bigfoot has a purpose. You believe you saw Bigfoot 27 years ago in a pocket of wilderness amidst the cities and farmland of the Virginia and North Carolina state line and need some manner of resolution. There are many ways to resolve the issue that don't involve Bigfoot enthusiast chat rooms, internet radio shows, and conventions. That is not to say that you are to be criticized for following that path. You live in the United States of America, not Indonesia, and there are ways of resolving if there are gargantuan monster mammals in your neck of the woods. I've given you some of the essential information necessary which took me only a matter of minutes to think of and search out.

BTW, would you call yourself a cryptozoology enthusiast? Like, is it something you enjoy?

[LONGTABBER PE]

LT, thank you for sharing your two not sure encounters of bigfoot. I would like to know two things about both of them.

1. Did you notice any facial features or physical build on the creature/creatures you saw?

2. Allegdly, the creature sounded like a "Growl in a barrel". That must have been shell shocking for both yourself and Robin. Did both encounters ever traumatize you? Would you consider either one a major impact on your Bigfoot stance today?

>>>1. Did you notice any facial features or physical build on the creature/creatures you saw?

Facial- no to both, physical were somewhat massive/bulky

In the first one- the sighting was so fleeting, there was no time to really study it
In the second- the relationship was very large but at that range and with Gen I thermals and starlight, you cant make much out beyond the fuzz and halo

>>>Allegdly, the creature sounded like a "Growl in a barrel". That must have been shell shocking for both yourself and Robin.

Yeah, it got our full and undivided attention

>>>Did both encounters ever traumatize you?

Depends on how you define traumatize. By the clinical definition- no, by the "in the back of your head" definition it made me personally more "aware" of a chance encounter with an adversary and to never go anywhere in the woods unarmed then it would be yes. That said, I dont consider that to be "traumatized" any more than a near miss in a car wreck might make one a more careful driver. In my words, it makes me more "open minded" and aware of "out of the box" possibilities. I didnt alter my life around it if thats what you mean.

Combat actually "traumatized" me but thats another story and has nothing to do with BF.

>>>Would you consider either one a major impact on your Bigfoot stance today

Technically, they would be the ONLY reason I even keep the door open to the legitimate possibility of such a creature existing other than the obvious truth that theres no "proof" they cant or dont exist so if you view that as a "major impact" then I suppose the answer would be yes.

[kitakaze]

I agree with you totally about my 15 mins of fame being up. Heck I would call it 5 mins. I do not like to talk about my encounter anyway. But, there are people here on this forum who seem to have questions or do not know me or my story. I just wanted to be fair to them. If I can come here looking for research ideas, it is only fair for me to answer questions. Other then that, I have no agenda here as some have said.

I can help with that. What do you think Bigfoot eats? Other than the leaves of a mulberry tree (and finds mulberries to be yucky), I mean. What do you suppose a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape gets for the 12,000+ kcal/day it would require in that little corridor of woods along the Pasquotank River?

I have taken Kit's and other JREF members advice and I am seeking professional help regarding my sleep problems. I really do not want to discuss that any more in depth as it it personal.

I'm really stoked to hear that. Obviously, since you are seeing that professional about sleep problems and not Bigfoot problems, it can not be the professional that you cryptically mentioned and indicated you wouldn't discuss further here...

I reject it not only on my opinion, but the opinion of a professional. Please do not expect me to comment on it publicly.

So you wouldn't even comment on what profession that professional is that bolsters your claim of seeing Bigfoot in 1982? Probably would have been better not to mention it if it needs to be a secret.

[makaya325]

>>>1. Did you notice any facial features or physical build on the creature/creatures you saw?

Facial- no to both, physical were somewhat massive/bulky

In the first one- the sighting was so fleeting, there was no time to really study it
In the second- the relationship was very large but at that range and with Gen I thermals and starlight, you cant make much out beyond the fuzz and halo

>>>Allegdly, the creature sounded like a "Growl in a barrel". That must have been shell shocking for both yourself and Robin.

Yeah, it got our full and undivided attention

>>>Did both encounters ever traumatize you?

Depends on how you define traumatize. By the clinical definition- no, by the "in the back of your head" definition it made me personally more "aware" of a chance encounter with an adversary and to never go anywhere in the woods unarmed then it would be yes. That said, I dont consider that to be "traumatized" any more than a near miss in a car wreck might make one a more careful driver. In my words, it makes me more "open minded" and aware of "out of the box" possibilities. I didnt alter my life around it if thats what you mean.

Combat actually "traumatized" me but thats another story and has nothing to do with BF.

>>>Would you consider either one a major impact on your Bigfoot stance today

Technically, they would be the ONLY reason I even keep the door open to the legitimate possibility of such a creature existing other than the obvious truth that theres no "proof" they cant or dont exist so if you view that as a "major impact" then I suppose the answer would be yes.

Did the figures look more like blobs/shadows or like hair covered gorillas on the base? You would agree that both of your incidents involved an animal larger than the average man, correct? Because you said the subject in your 2nd sighting cleared a known height mark you mentioned before?



Other than those 2 encounters, have there been any other times in which you may have seen or have heard something you cant explain, and then say "Maybe"?

[kitakaze]

Not until last week. Please don't ask me to comment on personal medical issues and today will only be my second session anyway.

I really wish you luck with this. BTW, you have mentioned the possibility of having sleep apnea. I have experience with this as a family member had it and just recently had corrective surgery. Have you ever had a broken nose? Also, has anyone ever observed you stop breathing briefly while you sleep? I'm asking because the snoring thing came up before and I'm wondering if you might have a deviated septum which can contribute to sleep problems.

[WGBH]

John, what is a scoftic?


Kit, here is the definition by the man who came up with the word.

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

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

It's just a definition used to describe a behavior, just like the one you gave above for Bigfoot enthusiast.



Who are these people? They are everywhere Kit. I even have a little in myself.

Can you name three? Yes, but why name names?

Are we all scoftics here? Not all, no.

Am I a scoftic? If we go by the definition above, yes.

Do I unfairly dismiss legitimate propositions and evidence unfairly without research and due consideration?

The propositions, yes.

Is there some unreasonable and irrational behavior going on with me?

It's not unreasonable,irrational,good or bad. It's just a personality trait.



John, you may object to the term "Bigfoot enthusiast" but it is correct and perfectly valid. An enthusiast is one who is ardently absorbed in an interest or pursuit. Don't believe me? Look it up. That's you. If the term bothers you, I can call you a Bigfoot searcher, proponent, believer, or Susan if you ask me to. I will not call you a Bigfoot researcher because poking around in the woods looking for Bigfoot is not researching an animal. Ask any wildlife biologist or zoologist.

You don't have to label me at all. You can just call me John.

You were the mod and now admin of a Bigfoot discussion board call the "Search For Bigfoot".

Correct

What does being a mod on a Bigfoot discussion board have to do with finding Bigfoot?

Nothing.

You attend various Bigfoot conventions. You participate in various Bigfoot radio shows.

Correct.


Before you had friends to pull you away, you were a Tom Biscardi supporter.

I just listened to his radio show a few times and it was really bad BTW.

For you searching for Bigfoot has a purpose. You believe you saw Bigfoot 27 years ago in a pocket of wilderness amidst the cities and farmland of the Virginia and North Carolina state line and need some manner of resolution.

Correct

There are many ways to resolve the issue that don't involve Bigfoot enthusiast chat rooms, internet radio shows, and conventions. That is not to say that you are to be criticized for following that path. You live in the United States of America, not Indonesia, and there are ways of resolving if there are gargantuan monster mammals in your neck of the woods. I've given you some of the essential information necessary which took me only a matter of minutes to think of and search out.

If it was so easy, why hasn't it been solved?

BTW, would you call yourself a cryptozoology enthusiast? Like, is it something you enjoy?

No, I call myself John, nice to meet you. The only "cryptid I am interested in is Bigfoot.Enjoy it? Not really. I enjoy the company of my friends.

[WGBH]

I really wish you luck with this. BTW, you have mentioned the possibility of having sleep apnea. I have experience with this as a family member had it and just recently had corrective surgery. Have you ever had a broken nose? Also, has anyone ever observed you stop breathing briefly while you sleep? I'm asking because the snoring thing came up before and I'm wondering if you might have a deviated septum which can contribute to sleep problems.

Thanks, I hope it helps me too.

No never broke my nose before. I think if I continue to lose weight my snoring will get better. I have lost 70 lbs and counting. If not, I think you are correct and I will get tested for sleep apnea. That is just on the back burner right now.

[Vortigern99]

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

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


By that definition, every good scientist is also a "scoftic". Eyewitness testimony in an unverified, uncorroborated, unquantified state cannot be accepted as evidence in and of itself. This is simple logic, owing to the known and documented facts of perceptual distortion, unintended memory embellishment, hallucination, and willful falsification. Any attempt to criticize this technique of discerning fact from fiction derives from a deeply flawed understanding of the scientific method.

Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Sagan, Hawking: All "scoftics" according to Knights' overreaching and absurd mischaracterization. The essential point he appears to be missing is that there is already a word that meets the criterion of "someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds", and that word is "skeptic". There is no need to invent a new, dismissive and insulting term for this concept.

[WGBH]

Some of those scientists you mentioned above took chances and "leaps of faith" in order to further their studies, research and/or theories. That is not being a scoftic. It is far from it.

[WGBH]

I can help with that. What do you think Bigfoot eats? Other than the leaves of a mulberry tree (and finds mulberries to be yucky), I mean. What do you suppose a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape gets for the 12,000+ kcal/day it would require in that little corridor of woods along the Pasquotank River?

Deer, Fish, small game. The farm crops when available.

I'm really stoked to hear that. Obviously, since you are seeing that professional about sleep problems and not Bigfoot problems, it can not be the professional that you cryptically mentioned and indicated you wouldn't discuss further here...

I am only worried about sleep problems.

So you wouldn't even comment on what profession that professional is that bolsters your claim of seeing Bigfoot in 1982? Probably would have been better not to mention it if it needs to be a secret.

He is a psychiatrist and he has not been bolstering anything. I wish...LOL

[kitakaze]

That is the problem Kit, you can't even recognize the hurtful things you say. Before you ask me to "prove my claims" by copying and pasting them, I am not interested in that argument, I can deal with it. You know when I lost my temper and why I did it. I told you right here on this forum. Don't play coy.

Absolutely why should I not ask you to show me my words where I said something hurtful to you? If I said something incivil, inappropriate, and hurtful to you, I want to see those words so that I may apologize. You'll understand if I don't just take your word for it.

I posted that quote on SFB in a attempt to diffuse a situation that Crow may have started that I did not want. I was making light of the situation by saying I am OK and I can handle myself here on the JREF fine. That is all I intended. It was not a attack on you and it was a mistake to use your name.

OK, I understand. It's just that it's very bizarre to see some of that discussion going on in the PGF Munns thread at Melissa's board. There's all this handwaving about insults from skeptics and it's like, uh... where are they? It reminds me of the scene in Lost in Translation where Bill Murray's character is in his Tokyo hotel room and the Japanese prostitute comes in. She's tearing off her own clothes and pleading with Bill not to rape her while he is standing there like, "Uhhh... what are you doing?"

Melissa keeps whining about insults and if you look through the thread, the only actual insult you will find is me telling Lyndon that I think of him as an internet thug after he started bringing old baggage to the SFB and whining about me reporting him years ago for telling a female JREF member to stick something up her butt. You know, that thing that is specifically mentioned not to do in the rules?


I don't believe that not thinking you really saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape amidst the civilization of the Virginia/North Carolina state line qualifies as being mean or nasty. I mean, c'mon. Look at the place we're talking about. An alleged encounter in 1982 first reported in 1998 after a long bout of alcoholism and being discussed 27 years later. I think there is a lot of room for perceptual distortion there but that's just me.

You have made this opinion very clear. I get it.

In that case what makes your claim of a Bigfoot sighting any better than the Reptoid sighting I linked on youtube?

BTW, about youtube, that brings a question to my mind. I can't show you the quote because after I quoted you from the PGF section of the SFB that Melissa removed from public view my IP address was quickly blocked (interesting timing, BTW. Did you do that or was it Melissa? Her being afraid of a skeptic being able to read and respond to the BS she makes up is her type of cowardice)

Anyway, I see that since I was thrown out for being able to effectively counter Melissa's and other Bigfoot enthusiast misconceptions and flawed logic that the Munns thread has descended into a giddy little skeptic/JREF bash piñata party. I also noticed members there making up some weird lie that JREF skeptics use youtube as a hard fact reference resource. You commented asking what's up with that? That's really funny because as you know, I often would put up youtube links for you. Sometimes it was to show you a certain area of the world but usually it was showing you the videos made by Bigfoot enthusiasts to show what they are doing. Not once have I ever relied on youtube as a resource for making statements that would require proper source verification. You don't see me telling you how many calories a bear eats before a winter torpor with a link to a youtube video that told me that. So to perpetuate that JREF skeptics are bad critical thinkers because they can't even figure out how to properly source factual information is quite intellectually dishonest and pretty much a straight up lie.

I really wish you wouldn't contribute to that blatantly false concept. I go out of my way to bring a myriad of sources and links in my posts to allow the reader to see for themselves the things I am discussing. I don't appreciate people making lies about JREF skeptics just because they can't hack debate with them. I'm not saying that's you but please understand that people here more than any Bigfoot chat room or discussion board know the importance of verifying facts.

But you are not around there Kit. You were thrown out for behavior not wanted on that forum by its owner. The fact that you or I may not agree with those rules is not the point. If you want to post there you abide by them.

You have no idea how many times I attempted to defuse the situation regarding you and the rest of the admin. I argued on your behalf on the admin forums constantly. Only for you to turn around and do the same things you were warned about again and again. You took it out of my hands Kit. News flash, If it was not for me you would have been tossed long before you were.

I think then I owe you my thanks and that only underscores how pathetic Melissa's little mutual backpatters society is. Let's not kid anyone, I was thrown out of the SFB because Melissa and her buddies got all discombobulated with having someone effectively counter their poor arguments while doing so in a civil manner. The behaviour not wanted by the owner was me disagreeing with and correcting Melissa. She can't stand being schooled by a skeptic. It happens and you can practically hear the steam kettle whistle of her anger boiling over. What did I do? Question the competence of a guy that flees from a porcupine thinking it's Bigfoot? (here would be the point where I put up three youtube videos of Bigfooters fleeing from what they think is Bigfoot) Show her in a civil and respectful manner that she was inventing arguments I wasn't making and falsely attributing double standards to me? Politely ask Melissa why we can't discuss whether or not we think the Freeman casts are hoaxes or not in a thread devoted to the collection of an admitted hoaxer? Uh oh, better delete that. That's just subversive. Did I tell her she was acting like another footer cult freak? No. HarryH (the dude) tells Melissa she is being scary and refuses her dictum not to discuss it in that thread and yet I'm the guy thrown out. What a joke. They couldn't even follow their own protocol to ban me. If you look at Melissa's idiotic "rules of engagement", anyone can see that she's intentionally made things vague so as to allow her freedom to play loose and easy with the way she interprets and enforces the rules of her sandbox.

I respect you, John, because I know you disagree with that behaviour. It's too bad Melissa can't actually hack people who disagree with her. The only skeptics she wants around there are the ones who she can kick around and make to look stupid. In reality she's banging away on the delete button for posts that show her straw men, misconceptions, outright lies, and bad critical thinking skills. Fortunately people like myself are at least smart enough to anticipate her footer cult freak behaviour and save the exchanges between us.

You're a great guy, John, but Melissa Hovey is a Bigfootery groupie and intellectual coward. She puts so much energy into whining about getting schooled by Matt Crowley that she has a hard time pulling her head out of her rear end. She says that skeptics never add anything positive to what Bigfoot "researchers" are trying to do and when you offer to help her she completely turtles and starts making up lame excuses. With people like Melissa contributing to Bigfootery gong shows it's little wonder few people take Bigfoot proponents seriously.

Here is the PM I sent you (minus your comments abstaining from the decision) with the email I received from Washingtonian telling me that my account was "suspended". Melissa was too much of a coward to do the dirty work herself and Washingtonian was too much of a coward to actually be straight up and tell me that I was banned:

I thought so. You're a smart guy and can handle healthy discussion. I just had my birthday so I really wasn't focused on it. I was expecting to be thrown out and that is why I recorded all my posts recently.

Melissa has every right to kick me out of her forum but if she wants to pretend that it was reasonable, justified, or following the rules as she wrote them, she is just kidding herself. Any intelligent and unbiased person can see that I was not trolling and intent on making trouble. Bigfoot is zoological black and white question and people who can't handle civil and informed debate on it act more like religious zealots than "researchers".

As you are now an admin at the board I will share with you the email I was sent and my response to it. There has of course been no reply:

Washingtonian,

While I disagree with the justification and the reasoning, I fully understand that yourself and others were uncomfortable with my participation and expected this. It was for that reason and anticipated deletion of posts that I saved my posts as well as those of the people I was interacting with.

I ask only one question for clarity. You inform me that my account has been suspended. Is this the two week suspension prescribed in the rules or in actuality an effective permanent ban (or at least for the foreseeable future)? I have acknowledged to Melissa and she has told me that she and the other administrators reserve the ability to remove my ability to post on the Search For Bigfoot forum at anytime, as you have decided to do. I am aware acutely of the rules and the way their wording can be applied and that my contributions contradict the purposes of the forum as well as the penalties:

PENALTIES:
First offense: Warning level increase with explanation.
Second Offense: Warning level increase with explanation.
Third Offense: Warning level increase with explanation.
Fourth Offense: Suspension of 2(two) weeks duration and possible moderation review of posts indefinitely upon your return.
Fifth and Final Offense: Permanent banishment.


I was suspended for two weeks then changed to three days after I questioned the competence of a person who posted a video on youtube of a porcupine as a baby Bigfoot.

I had posts deleted and my warning level increased for "negativity and potshots" after I made a civil and calm rebuttal to Melissa demonstrating that I was not implementing double standards with regards to image comparisons with Bob Heironimus and the PGF subject as well as a post seeking clarification from Melissa about being able to discuss the veracity of an admitted hoaxer's (Paul Freeman) alleged Bigfoot cast with at least 26 individual creatures represented.

I told Lyndon that I thought of him as an internet thug in this exchange:

Lyndon:

"You remember Kitakaze, before you tried to get me banned?? You remember when you tried to get me banned don't you? For usage of the word 'arse'? Oh my, shock horror. You called the mods, the admins n' everything. You even rang the dinner bell for crying out loud."

Myself:

"Yes, I remember some years ago reporting you for incivility. You were breaking your MA agreement and being extremely vulgar to a female member. It wasn't use of the word "arse" but rather what you told that woman what to do with it. You think I'll feel bad about the only time I've ever reported a person? Don't make me laugh. You said far worse to me. You're little above an internet thug to me and old chips on your shoulder don't concern me in the least. Time has done nothing to improve your foul character. I'm only interested in whatever broken logic you try to pass off as intelligent argument about Bigfoot."

This is a person who has made sexual slurs to members on the JREF, used the word "faggot" in reference to me, and has many warnings for violations of membership agreements on the JREF.

You say that I was trash talking and making derogatory comments to other members as well as staff members. Though I would understand if you were uninterested in making the effort, I would ask you to find anything that could be interpretted as trash talking and derogatory comments to members and staff beyond what I outlined above.

I might also point out the many words of respect, admiration, and support I wrote towards many members and staff on your forum and the fact that I am currently speaking in support of John Cartwright at the JREF. It is there that I have also written in support of the SFB and ABS.

I understand the desires and reasoning of those who wanted me removed permanently from th SFB. I ask only for confirmation of that permanence for clarity and future reference. I do hope you enjoy your return to normalcy.

Regards,

KK




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 10:12:26 -0700
Subject: Account suspension
From:
To:

Kitakaze,

In response to multiple complaints I have done a review of your postings on the Search for Bigfoot forum.

First of all I found that you have been warned numerous times about the violations of the rules of this forum. Often times you have assured the staff that you have read the rules, and that you will abide by them only to once again violate the rules just a few days later.

I find that you have treated other members as well as staff members in a very contemptuous manner and have even refused to abide by the staff's request as to your manner of posts.

I find that you have brought arguments to this forum that were on-going at other forums which is also a violation of the rules.

This forum is not a place to make posts that ridicule other peoples work. This kind of posting is non constructive as you are taking their work out of the realm of where they have posted it and bringing it to this forum.

Your treatment of other members in a manner that is belittling is simply not acceptable in this forum, we think too much of our members to subject them to such treatment.

You have taken several threads off topic, even to the point of questioning other members about things completely unrelated to the topic of the thread only to give yourself more "ammunition" to fire at them.

You time and time again make reference to past discussions in a condescending manner to members and staff that were either long ago resolved or the parties involved have dropped the discussion and you do so in threads that are completely unrelated to the issue that you raise, once again going off topic.

I find that you have done more than your share of trash talking and derogatory comments to other members as well as staff members who have shown you a great deal of tolerance each time you say that you will not do it again, yet it does happen again and again.

I have reviewed my findings with the staff and we have decided that we simply cannot tolerate this kind of posting anymore. Therefore it has been decided to suspend your account.

As I mentioned earlier your actions are not in keeping with the spirit or the purposes of this forum that are clearly stated.

Washingtonian


Please understand that I am going to go out of my way to keep you out of my firing line but with my anticipated banning I am now going to focus much critical attention on Melissa, the SFB, and the ABS. I feel absolutely no anger about being banned. As I said, I expected it but in no way tried to make it happen. I considered it like an experiment. Just continue to ask the reasonable questions that any person who isn't married to the idea of Bigfoot being real would ask.

Oh well. Melissa and her friends want to act like zealots, they'll get treated like zealots.

KK

PS - would you mind relaying to HarryH that his support and kind words were much appreciated? Also that while it's too bad we won't be able to continue discussion on the SFB, he is more than welcome to join us here where things are far more reasonable and active.

[kitakaze]

Thanks, I hope it helps me too.

No never broke my nose before. I think if I continue to lose weight my snoring will get better. I have lost 70 lbs and counting. If not, I think you are correct and I will get tested for sleep apnea. That is just on the back burner right now.

Holy cow! That's excellent. How have you done it? Lot's of hiking I hope. I can PM you some excellent excercise and diet advice if you're ever interested. Sounds like you're doing great on your own.

[kitakaze]

Deer, Fish, small game. The farm crops when available.

OK, let's think about this. How does a Bigfoot fish? We discussed this at SFB. I showed you salmon spawns here on Vancouver Island and showed you how every predator and scavenger will make use of them and yet we never see Bigfoot.

And deer and small game? OK, how does Bigfoot hunt deer, rabbits, possum, etc. He not using his nose and he certainly isn't using his claws. He's 9 x 6 ft and on two feet in heavy growth. He's not going to be able to keep up with a deer or rabbit. He's not going to be using his nose or the fangs and claws he doesn't have. Well, what great apes do you know of that hunt?

And now would be the time for the youtube links. Please let me know if I'm propagating misinformation, thanks. Here's some chimps hunting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=309_ceqWkmg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nok3TOwOxsE

See them hunting the colobus monkies? That's not an easy feat. It takes great intelligence and teamwork. They use learned behaviours taught to them by other chimps. So how exactly is Bigfoot hunting it's prey? And how come we never find any Bigfoot kills that we can acquire DNA samples from?

And farmer crops? Well, no kidding. There's the no-brainer. Look again at the Google map I showed you. That little corridor of wilderness surrounding the Pasquotank is completely surrounded by farmland. Any Bigfoot would be an idiot not to try and hit some crops and fruit trees of the surrounding agriculture and civilization. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that this makes their eluding discovery by modern science a completely ridiculous prospect.

Damn zoobies dun bin in mah crops agin. I'ma blast me one a them peckerwoods!

I am only worried about sleep problems.


Any comment on whether this professional is the the same professional who you insinuated gave the opinion that you didn't have any sleep-related dream, hallucination, or distorted memory?

You say you are only worried about sleep problems so I guess it must be difficult when the psychiatrist asks what you have nightmares about. Please, if I'm prying too much, say so. I'm just so stoked that you're seeking proper help.

He is a psychiatrist and he has not been bolstering anything. I wish...LOL

See, now this makes me think we are talkng about the same professional. Again, I don't want to pry into your personal stuff and a process you've just started. It's just you made a cryptic remark that makes it sound like a psychiatrist rejected the idea that you didn't see a Bigfoot.

[kitakaze]

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

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


By that definition, every good scientist is also a "scoftic". Eyewitness testimony in an unverified, uncorroborated, unquantified state cannot be accepted as evidence in and of itself. This is simple logic, owing to the known and documented facts of perceptual distortion, unintended memory embellishment, hallucination, and willful falsification. Any attempt to criticize this technique of discerning fact from fiction derives from a deeply flawed understanding of the scientific method.

Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Sagan, Hawking: All "scoftics" according to Knights' overreaching and absurd mischaracterization. The essential point he appears to be missing is that there is already a word that meets the criterion of "someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds", and that word is "skeptic". There is no need to invent a new, dismissive and insulting term for this concept.

*Forrest Gump drill sergeant* Goddamn it, Vort! You're a goddamned genius! That's the most outstanding answer I've ever heard! You must have a goddamned I.Q. of 160! You are goddamned gifted, Private Vort! *Forrest Gump drill sergeant*

[LONGTABBER PE]

Did the figures look more like blobs/shadows or like hair covered gorillas on the base? You would agree that both of your incidents involved an animal larger than the average man, correct? Because you said the subject in your 2nd sighting cleared a known height mark you mentioned before?



Other than those 2 encounters, have there been any other times in which you may have seen or have heard something you cant explain, and then say "Maybe"?

>>>Did the figures look more like blobs/shadows or like hair covered gorillas on the base?

What part of fuzzy, long range and halo didnt you understand?

>>>You would agree that both of your incidents involved an animal larger than the average man, correct? Because you said the subject in your 2nd sighting cleared a known height mark you mentioned before?

Did you not comprehend what I wrote?

>>>Other than those 2 encounters, have there been any other times in which you may have seen or have heard something you cant explain, and then say "Maybe

I have seen and heard lots of things I couldnt explain for whatever reason at that time but none that trigger a "bigfoot" response

[clayflingythingy]

WGBH,

Your statement that BF would raid farm crops shows a complete lack of knowledge of things rural.

Have you ever seen the damage that a single groundhog can do to an alfalfa field? Have you ever seen damage that whitetail deer can do to crops and gardens?

The idea that a 9x6 BF is raiding local farmers fields and remains undetected is absolutely ridiculous. A single foraging BF would cut a wide swath of destruction that would have local farmers out late at nite with guns to shoot the critter.

[kitakaze]

Kit, here is the definition by the man who came up with the word.

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

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

It's just a definition used to describe a behavior, just like the one you gave above for Bigfoot enthusiast.

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

1) Oh heavens, no. I don't think the quantity of reports of Bigfoot sightings is insignificant at all. Bigfoot enthusiasts like to talk about how many hundreds of sightings are reported a year and the thousands in total. What they don't realize is that they effectively just kicked themselves in the nuts. They don't seem to get that talking about huge exorbitant numbers of sightings is actually damaging the credibility of their proposition. Right, OK, four hundred sightings a year and that chance for a type specimen, reliable evidence, or unambiguous imagery just keeps slipping through our grasp. How many people a year see a Javan rhino in the wild? and yet we have unambiguous video of what is probably the rarest large mammal on Earth living in remote, inaccessible, dense jungle. About 40–50 live in Ujung Kulon National Park on the island of Java in Indonesia and a small population, estimated in 2007 to be no more than eight, survives in Cat Tien National Park in Vietnam. Bigfoot, on the other hand, apparently has a more succesful range than the grizzly bear, black bear, an cougar and is allegedly seen hundreds of times all across two of the most industrialized nations on the planet.

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.

2) I would not completely dismiss alleged sightings. I would be very interested to hear about a group of wildlife biologists or similar scientists and expert observers have a group encounter of a Bigfoot at close range doing something that would make it very difficult to be a man in a suit or misidentification. If park rangers in a place like Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington state kept logging close encounters with Bigfoots and had consistent details that would make a hoax or misidentification very difficult, I'd be very interested. That would really get my attention. It wouldn't be proof but it would be a lot better than anything you guys are trotting around at Bigfoot conventions now.

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

Can you name three? Yes, but why name names?

Indulge me. You guys throw around the term "scoftic" so freely (even though most Bigfooters consider the term to be quite stupid now and worn out) that I think you should be able to have the beans to actually tag some specific people with it. You tagged me, let's see you tag three more. I'm guessing you'll tag anyone here who thought you were lying.

Am I a scoftic? If we go by the definition above, yes.

Interesting that you would label me with an idiotic term while getting bothered that I use one that your own fellow Bigfoot enthusiasts like Billy Willard and DB Donlon use. Seeing how Roger's definition was fall-down stupid, I'm not really worried. If you can show me unreasonably dismissing a legitimate proposition without due investigation, research, and consideration, you let me know. Then I will be worried about my own critical thinking skills.

Do I unfairly dismiss legitimate propositions and evidence unfairly without research and due consideration?

The propositions, yes.

Which propositions would those be, John? That despite the gong show of hoaxer idiots and Bigfoot enthusiasts farting around in the Salt Fork State Park in Ohio, that there may actually be a population of monster 9 ft wood apes obtaining 12,000+ kcal/day individually, breeding, making weirdo stick structures, chucking things at people, putting the stink on them, roaring like thunder, and screaming like dying ladies in places such as the handicapped picnic area and outside the ranger station amongst the 23 square miles of the park.

Well, since I've researched it and the alleged evidence in detail and confirmed that it is indeed as stupid as it sounds, I'm not to worried about being called a "scoftic" for that.

You don't have to label me at all. You can just call me John.

But Susan has such a nice ring to it.:D

I won't call you a Bigfoot enthusiast (even though it's perfectly appropriate) if it really bugs you but don't forget to tell all those guys like Billy, DB, Loren Coleman, etc to stop using it. Is there anything suitable for your tastes that isn't a misnomer like "Bigfoot researcher"?

There are many ways to resolve the issue that don't involve Bigfoot enthusiast chat rooms, internet radio shows, and conventions. That is not to say that you are to be criticized for following that path. You live in the United States of America, not Indonesia, and there are ways of resolving if there are gargantuan monster mammals in your neck of the woods. I've given you some of the essential information necessary which took me only a matter of minutes to think of and search out.

If it was so easy, why hasn't it been solved?


Your Bigfoot problem or the question in general?

For you I would say it's because you waste to much time in Bigfoot enthusiast chat rooms and internet radio shows and not enough talking to wildlife and enviromental experets in your area about what can and can't be there undiscovered.

In general, I'd say there's no problem. I'd say that all the available evidence points to Bigfoot being a social construct perpetuated by silly people playing an adult roleplaying game. Hoaxes, lies, midentifications, fantasies, etc. That's what I think Bigfoot is.

BTW, would you call yourself a cryptozoology enthusiast? Like, is it something you enjoy?

No, I call myself John, nice to meet you. The only "cryptid I am interested in is Bigfoot.Enjoy it? Not really. I enjoy the company of my friends.

Oh dear, that's not good. You should tell Melissa or somebody to fix this then:

John Cartwright, Virginia/North Carolina

John Cartwright is a lifelong resident of Norfolk/Virginia Beach,VA. He is a Administrator for a large company. He is 44 and single. He had a sighting of the animal in the fall of 1982 near the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina.

He became involved in research to help overcome trauma from his sighting. He began going into the field again in May 2008.

He joined Sasquatch Watch of Virginia in September 2008. In his spare time he enjoys writing, rock music, soccer and of course cryptozoology.


http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/abs-investigators.html

Doh!

Hey, Melissa can you block that site from my IP address also? LOL

[Skeptical Greg]

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

:D

[WGBH]

Absolutely why should I not ask you to show me my words where I said something hurtful to you? If I said something incivil, inappropriate, and hurtful to you, I want to see those words so that I may apologize. You'll understand if I don't just take your word for it.

Kit, you are a grown man it is not my job to show you these things. Most of us are taught our social skills by our parents.

OK, I understand. It's just that it's very bizarre to see some of that discussion going on in the PGF Munns thread at Melissa's board. There's all this handwaving about insults from skeptics and it's like, uh... where are they? It reminds me of the scene in Lost in Translation where Bill Murray's character is in his Tokyo hotel room and the Japanese prostitute comes in. She's tearing off her own clothes and pleading with Bill not to rape her while he is standing there like, "Uhhh... what are you doing?"

For a place you complain about, topics you laugh at and membership you insult. You love to talk about it and used to love to spend time there.
Uhhh...what are YOU doing?

Half of your posts here on this thread have been copied and pasted from the SFB. I do not come here to read posts from the SFB. I have even deleted most of them from this reply.


In that case what makes your claim of a Bigfoot sighting any better than the Reptoid sighting I linked on youtube?

I have never claimed anything about my sighting, except that it happened.


I think then I owe you my thanks and that only underscores how pathetic Melissa's little mutual backpatters society is. Let's not kid anyone, I was thrown out of the SFB because Melissa and her buddies got all discombobulated with having someone effectively counter their poor arguments while doing so in a civil manner.

No you were thrown out for being insulting and belligerent.


What did I do?

You insulted people constantly.

You broke posting guidelines constantly, especially the one about:
FSB Rule #3: DO NOT come to this forum to carry on a vendetta you are engaged in on another forum. You continue this behavior on this forum. Do the admin here allow this?


You went off thread topics constantly.

Here is the PM I sent you (minus your comments abstaining from the decision).

You just told my comments.

Why do you feel the need to post a private PM between us on a public forum? This is proof of your unethical behavior for all to see. I send you a PM telling you I am sorry about what happened to you and I abstained from it. Then you turn around and use it against me? For what? To try to cause problems for me at the SFB? Why would you want to do this to me? I have never tried to be anything but nice and understanding to you. This is what you feel I deserve?

What exactly is your agenda here Kit? Are you trying to crucify me here on the JREF? What for? For coming here to answer questions about my Bigfoot encounter? Why do I deserve to be treated this way and not some of the other people here such as Longtabber, who have shared their encounters?

To the rest of the membership here.

THIS is why this forum gets the reputation it gets. This is not being critical of my Bigfoot encounter or being scientific in the least.This thread was supposed to be about answering questions about Bigfoot encounters. This is a out and out personal attack on me. This is a personal attack on my friends.
It is things like this that give this forum it's unfair reputation.

[kitakaze]

Absolutely why should I not ask you to show me my words where I said something hurtful to you? If I said something incivil, inappropriate, and hurtful to you, I want to see those words so that I may apologize. You'll understand if I don't just take your word for it.

Kit, you are a grown man it is not my job to show you these things. Most of us are taught our social skills by our parents.

This is beginning to look like you know I haven't written anything insulting, incivil, and in breach of the MA here. It is a simple matter to quote where I have done what you claim. I would do so in minutes if the situation was reversed. Simple thing - you claim I was insulting and incivil to you. Show me the evidence and I will give you a very humble apology. I am confident you will not do this because I have made sure that while we are engaging in vigourous and lively debate, I'm not saying anything to you that is not appropriate for such as debate or making any ad homs to you. Many times I've complimented you, given words of support, or spoke in defense of you. This is not unlike what you did for me at the SFB and I feel happy to return the favour.

John, please just show me where I've been incivil to you so that I can properly apologize. I won't apologize for something someone is making up.

For a place you complain about, topics you laugh at and membership you insult. You love to talk about it and used to love to spend time there.
Uhhh...what are YOU doing?

What am I doing? I'm pointing out how ironic it is that after I was banned that PGF thread went into a little JREF/skeptic bashfest with people making up all sorts of garbage. For example, Bill Munns and Melissa claiming that I was lying and making a skeptical fantasy when I said that Bill was a believer in Bigfoot and had decided the PGF was real long before he ever started an attempt at a photogrammetry study or showed up at the BFF and getting his creature suit analysis pinned.

News flash:

“While some have since claimed that the film is a hoax, longtime Hollywood special-effects creator Bill Munns said it would have been impossible in 1967 to fake a creature suit like the one depicted in the film.”
Theo Stein, Denver Post, January 14, 2001

Ding dong! Who's eating shoe now?

BTW, of course I enjoyed posting at the SFB. I liked debating with smart people like yourself and AlanF and the challenge of countering the poor arguments of people like Melissa in a way that was civil and respectful so as not to allow for accusations of ad homs (happened anyway). I also liked reviewing some of the more obscure things happening in Bigfootery in a quieter atmosphere and being in a place where I didn't have the largest skeptical online community in the world to back me up. I told people there that on a number of occasions.

Half of your posts here on this thread have been copied and pasted from the SFB. I do not come here to read posts from the SFB. I have even deleted most of them from this reply.

This is simply not true. I have shown a couple of my posts from the SFB for a specific reason and made it perfectly I was doing so. I'd say about 99% of the posts I've made here contain no posts from the SFB. If you want to contend the point, I'll bring out the board stats and prove it. Most of what I've written you've simply refused to consider. That seems somewhat close-minded to me.

I have never claimed anything about my sighting, except that it happened.

Yes, exactly. You said you saw a 9 x 6 ft (though you would have said 10ft tall) monster wood ape by the Pasquotank River from a deer stand after becoming disoriented and very groggy in 1982. Why is it any more likely that you saw what you believe you saw than Barry seeing a Reptoid? It's a simple question.

You say you saw something. Show me that it could not have been a sleep-related dream or hallucination or memory distortion, which is proven to happen all the time, and that it was nothing other than what you claim. Saying that it really happened simply because the situation and circumstances did not repeat themselves is an invalid argument.

No you were thrown out for being insulting and belligerent.

You insulted people constantly.


Prove it. You are repeating yourself with no substantiation. This happens often when people no that have no substantiation to give. I would have proven my claim right from the get go and needed no prodding whatsoever. I called Lyndon an "internet thug". That was the one insult to another SFB member you will find from me. Show me even just one more, I challenge you. I predict you will not do this and effectively call it a waste of time. Backing up your claims is never a waste of time and will shut me up real quick (after my humble apology, of course).

You broke posting guidelines constantly, especially the one about:
FSB Rule #3: DO NOT come to this forum to carry on a vendetta you are engaged in on another forum. You continue this behavior on this forum. Do the admin here allow this?

Gobbledy-gook. Now you're just plain wrong. Who did I come to the forum to carry on a vendetta against? The first time I came to the board two years ago I refused to allow Sweaty to bait me with baggage from here regardless of his taunting that I was scared. And when I came back in April this year was I carrying on a vendetta from another forum? Absolutely not. I made my intentions perfectly clear. I'll post them for you if you if you continue to claim otherwise. Yes, I did engage in debate with Lyndon who was taunting me while explicitly breaking that rule #3 of yours. How's Lyndon doing? Still posting? Of course he is. He believes in Bigfoot, so he can get away with breaking the rules.

Let's have a boo at the rules, shall we? (of course I saved them for just such an occasion) My comments in pink:

Information you need to know before you register for this forum. Please read carefully.


PURPOSE OF THIS FORUM: To "intelligently and respectfully" discuss/debate the bigfoot phenomenon. If you cannot be either this isn't the forum for you. Don't make it your mission here to convert the unwashed whichever side of the issue you are on. That's not your responsibility. (A-ha... So this could basically be used against anyone consistently deflates bad arguments by a Bigfoot enthusiast) You are only responsible for yourself and your own conduct. These rules apply to everyone across the board. If you think you are immune you are mistaken and your time here will be short lived. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Read them, abide by them.

Rule #1: To participate in this forum you must be able to debate your point of view of the issues politely and respectfully without name calling, accusatory comments, or confrontational posts.

(Ah, yes. Confrontational posts. So Melissa and friends can basically apply this to any post explaining how they were mistaken about something.)

Rule #2: DO NOT vigilante moderate this forum. The staff here will assist you with problems.

(Actually, I think I did this once when I mentioned to someone something that was against the rules.)

Rule #3: DO NOT come to this forum to carry on a vendetta you are engaged in on another forum. This includes cross posting from this forum, or from other forums.

Yeah, that's funny because that is exactly what Lyndon did and groupie Melissa was cheerleading him for it. Melissa freaked when Lyndon said he he gave up and said he didn't want to stick around. That was what she and Washingtonian used as an excuse to say that members were leaving because of me. Yes, a member showed up to try and carry on a grudge against me and made to leave when he wasn't successful at what he was trying to do.

Rule #4: If you cannot get along with someone, or entertain their point of view, ignore them. That's what the ignore feature is for.

Rule #5: DO NOT engage trolls. Do NOT engage in troll like behavior.

Rule #6: Skeptics are welcome here, however, if you are unwilling to be objective and entertain alternate points of view this isn't the place for you.

ROFL! Skeptics are welcome, if they can keep relatively quiet and not effectively deflate bad arguments by Melissa and friends.

:dl:

Rule #7: Believers are welcome here, just know there are skeptics here and everyone will NOT embrace your opinion. If you are unwilling to discuss alternate points of view this isn't the place for you either.

(This is fall-down hilarious. Thread: Freeman cast collection> alternate point of view> casts by admitted hoaxer are in fact hoaxes> Melissa forbids such discussion in that thread. Scary but true.)

Rule #8: Check your attitude at the door. This isn't the place for it.

(Read: don't disagree with Melissa and friends.)

Rule #9: If someone doesn't agree with you, they aren't stupid or wrong. Don't treat them as if they are.

(Wow. If someone doesn't agree with you, they aren't wrong. That's a very interesting rule. Gotta keep it nice and vague for when the time comes to kick skeptics out of the sandbox.)

Rule #10: Speak to others as you would have them speak to you. If you wouldn't want the tone or attitude of the post you want to make directed at you, do not direct it at others.

Rule #11: Agree to disagree. If you are at an impasse with others agree to disagree and move on.

Rule #12: DO NOT argue with the admin or moderation staff over closed topics, or broken rules. We aren't the problem. (Two week suspension for this no exceptions)

(This is the one I know I broke and said so on the SFB. I asked melissa why she deleted posts that were completely civil, respectful, and on topic.)

Rule #13: DO NOT post for a member who has been banned or is on moderator preview. If they want to speak they can do it through the staff. (Two week suspension for this for first offense.)

Rule #14: NO ONE using this board may use its PM feature or the forums to send mass messages or create posts which are in reference to gossip or other off board topics. If you are found to be doing such a thing, you will be banned immediately.

(Is that a new one? What does that mean? Don't make big posts or posts which say things like "Bill Munns believed in Bigfoot and the PGF before he came to the BFF"?)

CLOSED THREADS: When a topic is closed DO NOT start another to continue the same conversation without notifying an admin first. The original thread was closed for a reason. DO NOT start another topic to complain about a topic that has been closed. (Two weeks suspensions for this so read carefully)

TOPICS THAT ARE NOT FOR DISCUSSION: Religion, politics, supernatural/trans dimensional/time-travel/wormhole/UFO theories. This isn't that kind of forum.

These are not suggestions, guidelines or friendly advice. These are the rules of the forum and they are non negotiable. Abide by them and you'll be successful here. Ignore them and your stay here will be a short one.

PENALTIES:
First offense: Warning level increase with explanation.
Second Offense: Warning level increase with explanation.
Third Offense: Warning level increase with explanation.
Fourth Offense: Suspension of 2(two) weeks duration and possible moderation review of posts indefinitely upon your return.
Fifth and Final Offense: Permanent banishment.

(Melissa and friends couldn't even follow their own protocols to have me thrown out.)

Trash talking or derogatory commentary about this forum or its members and staff on another forum/message board won't change anything here and won't endear you to the staff of this forum.

Don't expect to be welcomed with open arms here if you're running this forum into the ground elsewhere. Membership and posting on this forum is a privilege not a right.

All new Member Accounts are placed on 7 day Moderator Preview.

The Owner of The Search For Bigfoot and its Staff reserve the right to ban or place accounts on moderator preview, or take any other action deemed necessary, at anytime.

(Particularly if you are an articulate and informed skeptic.)

This forum has a ZERO TOLERANCE for SPAMMERS.

If you are registering, please understand your account must be manually approved by a member of the staff. This process can take up to 24 hours. Please be patient and watch for the approval in your email box. I know it takes a while, but please bare with us, this measure is for those who want to enjoy the forum, without all the drama from people coming here to cause problems.

Thank you.


When you have rules written the way Melissa has them, she can basically get away with whatever she likes. It is her sandbox, afterall.

You went off thread topics constantly.


OT like when I countered Lyndon's arguments in a PGF thread that the number of videos of shark attacks on humans had relevance to the lack of unambiguous videos of Bigfoot? Or OT like Melissa harping about desertyeti in a PGF thread? I guess it all depends on how the head of the sandbox calls it.:rolleyes:

You just told my comments.

Why do you feel the need to post a private PM between us on a public forum? This is proof of your unethical behavior for all to see. I send you a PM telling you I am sorry about what happened to you and I abstained from it. Then you turn around and use it against me? For what? To try to cause problems for me at the SFB? Why would you want to do this to me? I have never tried to be anything but nice and understanding to you. This is what you feel I deserve?

What exactly is your agenda here Kit? Are you trying to crucify me here on the JREF? What for? For coming here to answer questions about my Bigfoot encounter? Why do I deserve to be treated this way and not some of the other people here such as Longtabber, who have shared their encounters?

To the rest of the membership here.

THIS is why this forum gets the reputation it gets. This is not being critical of my Bigfoot encounter or being scientific in the least.This thread was supposed to be about answering questions about Bigfoot encounters. This is a out and out personal attack on me. This is a personal attack on my friends.
It is things like this that give this forum it's unfair reputation.

1) What exactly is unethical about my posting the contents of that PM and removing your comments. Comments that you reiterated a number of times in-thread. Just like right here:

I had nothing to do with what happened to you on the SFB forum Kit. I told you that.

There's nothing unethical about that at all.

2) I am not trying to crucify you or make problems for you at the SFB. I appreciate our dialogue. You have to understand that we're going to vigourously disgree about certain things but that doesn't mean I'm attacking you. I strongly disagree with some of the things done by Melissa and friends. Not everything. I'm only trying to get you to recognize that not everything they do or say makes perfect sense. Think about the people that showed you some of the questionable things done by Biscardi. I am only showing you that when people flip out and toss skeptics who engage debate in a civil manner, forbid discussion about things like an admitted hoaxer while condemning another, freak out and run away from shadows and porcupines, etc. that these are people that aren't helping the credibility of people like yourself.

I know how much the culty behaviour bothers you so I'm trying to appeal to that part of you. I know I can't convince you that you didn't see Bigfoot but I'm motivated and enthusiastic about getting you to debate the possibilities with me. Maybe it would be better if I didn't direct any SFB/ABS discussion to you. I will continue discussing it on this forum, however, so please don't take it personally.

3) I am not making a personal attack on you. You need to try and not be so defensive in that way. Am I criticizing people you are friends with? Yes, absolutely. It's not personal for me and if you can't see that, I can't help you. If I wanted to get dirty and personal about Melissa, I would be taking a completely different avenue, and that's not a place I'm going to go. Tell you what, from now on I'll address you about your sighting only in this thread. Fair enough?

4) I haven't asked Longtabber anything about his experiences yet simply because I haven't had time to get to them yet. It's not like he's been discussing them for long here.

[Aepervius]

Some of those scientists you mentioned above took chances and "leaps of faith" in order to further their studies, research and/or theories. That is not being a scoftic. It is far from it.


None took "leap of faith". They only had jump of intuition, followed that intuition and tried to provide evidence for it. A "leap of faith" means they would jump to conclusion without any step in the middle.

Even if you pretend their intuition was indeed a "leap of faith", they did not do by trusting other people words. This is simply a non-sequitur to the debate of BF "worth of witness testimony". A better argument would be to see how law enforcement see testimony and all the study which were done on it. After reading that you can only come to one conclusion : testimony are not worth much.

Bottom line is that scoffic is used as a derogatory term for skeptic, because some people have a pet theory to which there is no evidence whatsoever, and since they cannot provide evidence they would rather just try to deride/insult the skeptic and hope their message get derided at the same moment. That tactic only really work with other believer.

But the usage of derogatory term is not limited to one side. A similar example would be "bleever" (derogatory term for believer) "footers" and I pass other term which are about as derogatory and bad for any rethorical debate on both side.

[kitakaze]

I'm respondng here to this post by mikeyx as it doesn't relate to the MABRC:

Linking to something is one thing, they copy and paste entire pieces, sometimes giving credit, often not, and the Darren Lee hides behind fair use.

I agree, Mike. I think it's very important to give proper credit. I make it a habit to do so. As a musician and producer I know what it's like to have my work and ideas ripped off by people with less scruples.

That's why I think that it's pretty lame that Melissa Hovey's Bigfoot enthusiast group, the American Bigfoot Society, are being very lame when plastered on every page of their website (http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/) they've ripped off famed Canadian painter and naturalist, Robert Bateman (http://www.robertbateman.ca/)'s painting, Sasquatch (http://www.artandnature.com/bateman/sasquatch.html). They've chopped out Bateman's signature and not on a single page acknowledge the artist responsible for the image they've taken. That is really low, if you ask me.

It's like, hey, footers. Why don't you guys stick a sock in it with the holier-than-thou tripe and try actually employing the ethics you complain so much about.

That comment is not directed at you, Mike. I only know that your an SFB admin and nothing about if you're with the ABS. If you are you might want to ask Melissa or someone to give Bateman proper credit so she doesn't look like an idiot when talking about proper behaviour.

[desertgal]

That's why I think that it's pretty lame that Melissa Hovey's Bigfoot enthusiast group, the American Bigfoot Society, are being very lame when plastered on every page of their website (http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/) they've ripped off famed Canadian painter and naturalist, Robert Bateman (http://www.robertbateman.ca/)'s painting, Sasquatch (http://www.artandnature.com/bateman/sasquatch.html). They've chopped out Bateman's signature and not on a single page acknowledge the artist responsible for the image they've taken. That is really low, if you ask me.


Unethical, and, in this case, illegal. That painting doesn't fall under "fair use". It's a copyrighted work by the artist. Just. plain. wrong.

I imagine these people would scream like banshees if the situation were reversed. I guess theft is okay as long as you have a "reason". :rolleyes:

[WGBH]

Unethical, and, in this case, illegal. That painting doesn't fall under "fair use". It's a copyrighted work by the artist. Just. plain. wrong.

I imagine these people would scream like banshees if the situation were reversed. I guess theft is okay as long as you have a "reason". :rolleyes:

That web site was created years ago by the former president of the group who is no longer a member. We no longer use that web site. We have a new site and the artwork on our new site was created personally by a ABS member.

[WGBH]

Mike. I only know that your an SFB admin and nothing about if you're with the ABS. If you are you might want to ask Melissa or someone to give Bateman proper credit so she doesn't look like an idiot when talking about proper behaviour.

What are you talking about? Mikeyx is not a SFB admin. Are you speaking to someone else? Nevermind I know who it is now

Again. That is a old ABS web site that is no longer in use by the new re-booted ABS.

Last I checked this thread was called "Bigfoot- anybody seen one"?

I think we should start a new thread called " Bash the ABS"

[Maldon]

And deer and small game? OK, how does Bigfoot hunt deer, rabbits, possum, etc. He not using his nose and he certainly isn't using his claws. He's 9 x 6 ft and on two feet in heavy growth. He's not going to be able to keep up with a deer or rabbit. He's not going to be using his nose or the fangs and claws he doesn't have.

Would also be pretty hard hunting anything when your scent is alerting even humans.

[desertgal]

That web site was created years ago by the former president of the group who is no longer a member. We no longer use that web site. We have a new site and the artwork on our new site was created personally by a ABS member.

And? If the former president created that old website, then she still would have been the one who used the copyrighted painting without permission or credit. That she has since moved on doesn't change that-just means she's no longer responsible for adding a credit to the artist on the old website.

For that matter, where did I say "she"? Whoever made it was wrong. I didn't single out a specific person.

(And before you remind me that I am off topic, I'm simply responding to your post.)

[WGBH]

And? If the former president created that old website, then she still would have been the one who used the copyrighted painting without permission or credit. That she has since moved on doesn't change that-just means she's no longer responsible for adding a credit to the artist on the old website.

(And before you remind me that I am off topic, I'm simply responding to your post.)

So take that up with HIM. We have no control of that web site and no longer use it as I stated.

[desertgal]

So take that up with HIM. We have no control of that web site and no longer use it as I stated.

Thing is, as kit said, if the former president initially used the image without permission or credit, it was unethical, and, in this instance, illegal. That she has moved on doesn't change that. Period. If the former president is calling other people unethical, then that's hypocritical.

I'm not taking it up with anyone. I'm not the copyright police. But, when you are an author or an artist, and someone steals your work without permission or at least having the decency to find and give credit, it sucks. That was my point. Is that so hard to understand?

[WGBH]

Thing is, as kit said, if the former president initially used the image without permission or credit, it was unethical, and, in this instance, illegal. That she has moved on doesn't change that. Period. If the former president is calling other people unethical, then that's hypocritical.

I'm not taking it up with anyone. I'm not the copyright police. But, when you are an author or an artist, and someone steals your work without permission or at least having the decency to find and give credit, it sucks. That was my point. Is that so hard to understand?

But that is not what Kit said. Is that so hard to understand? He and yourself blamed the current ABS for something that we had nothing to do with and a web page we no longer use.

[Blackdog]

What are you talking about? Mikeyx is not a SFB admin. Are you speaking to someone else?

I beg to differ, maybe you should PM mikeyx and ask him yourself.

[realpaladin]

So, anyone seen one?

[WGBH]

So, anyone seen one?

Sure, you want to discuss it?

[desertgal]

But that is not what Kit said. Is that so hard to understand? He and yourself blamed the current ABS for something that we had nothing to do with and a web page we no longer use.

Wow. Am I supposed to be psychic and somehow know, before you clarified Kit's statement, that you and whomever were no longer associated with the current ABS? I'm sorry, I forgot to turn on my divining powers today.

Whomever created the image without credit or permission was unethical. Whomever is keeping it up there without credit or permission is unethical. If they are separate people or one and the same, still unethical. If the former president didn't create the image, that's all you had to say: 'She didn't create the image." Saying that she is no longer a member doesn't mean she didn't create the image before she resigned.

You're criticizing me for not being psychic when you weren't clear. Great.

[WGBH]

Wow. Am I supposed to be psychic and somehow know, before you clarified Kit's statement, that you and whomever were no longer associated with the current ABS? I'm sorry, I forgot to turn on my divining powers today.

Whomever created the image without credit or permission was unethical. Whomever is keeping it up there without credit or permission is unethical. If they are separate people or one and the same, still unethical. If the former president didn't create the image, that's all you had to say: 'She didn't create the image." Saying that she is no longer a member doesn't mean she didn't create the image before she resigned.

You're criticizing me for not being psychic when you weren't clear. Great.

Or maybe you just charged into something you knew nothing about with guns blazing?

[mikeyx]

I'm respondng here to this post by mikeyx as it doesn't relate to the MABRC:



I agree, Mike. I think it's very important to give proper credit. I make it a habit to do so. As a musician and producer I know what it's like to have my work and ideas ripped off by people with less scruples.

That's why I think that it's pretty lame that Melissa Hovey's Bigfoot enthusiast group, the American Bigfoot Society, are being very lame when plastered on every page of their website (http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/) they've ripped off famed Canadian painter and naturalist, Robert Bateman (http://www.robertbateman.ca/)'s painting, Sasquatch (http://www.artandnature.com/bateman/sasquatch.html). They've chopped out Bateman's signature and not on a single page acknowledge the artist responsible for the image they've taken. That is really low, if you ask me.

It's like, hey, footers. Why don't you guys stick a sock in it with the holier-than-thou tripe and try actually employing the ethics you complain so much about.

That comment is not directed at you, Mike. I only know that your an SFB admin and nothing about if you're with the ABS. If you are you might want to ask Melissa or someone to give Bateman proper credit so she doesn't look like an idiot when talking about proper behaviour.

you're jumping aroud your facts here a bit kit, pertaining to me.
Yes, I am an admin on sfb, I'm also the root admin on the Nesra forum as well as ISRIN, but I had no role in your ban, I abstained, also abs and sfb are seperate entities and I am only a member of the abs, and had no role in the site's design so I am a bit confused as to why you're dragging a quote from the MABRC thread over here just t include me, apples and oranges in my opinion. Hope that clarifies.

[WGBH]

I beg to differ, maybe you should PM mikeyx and ask him yourself.

Thanks I did.

[mikeyx]

What are you talking about? Mikeyx is not a SFB admin. Are you speaking to someone else? Nevermind I know who it is now

Again. That is a old ABS web site that is no longer in use by the new re-booted ABS.

Last I checked this thread was called "Bigfoot- anybody seen one"?

I think we should start a new thread called " Bash the ABS"

In JC's defense, I come over here as myself and not much else so he didnt apparently know that I am an admin over there.

[desertgal]

Or maybe you just charged into something you knew nothing about with guns blazing?

Or maybe I remarked on something Kit said, you just weren't clear in correcting me, I misunderstood you as a result, and you decided that being insulting was the way to go.

[realpaladin]

Sure, you want to discuss it?
Not really. That was all I wanted to know.

[RayG]

Bottom line is that scoffic is used as a derogatory term for skeptic, because some people have a pet theory to which there is no evidence whatsoever, and since they cannot provide evidence they would rather just try to deride/insult the skeptic and hope their message get derided at the same moment.

I would have to agree with that, it seems to have been created as a derogatory term. Nothing more, nothing less.

A similar example would be "bleever" (derogatory term for believer) "footers" and I pass other term which are about as derogatory and bad for any rethorical debate on both side.Here I would disagree. I don't consider 'footer' derogatory, as it's a concise way of referring to 'someone who is pursuing the mystery of bigfoot', or 'someone who has an ongoing interest/enthusiasm for the topic'. I would consider myself a 'footer', living in 'Footerville', somewhere in the land of 'Bigfootdom'.

I'm perfectly fine with someone referring to me using those terms, and I don't see anything derogatory about them.

RayG

[tsig]

Unethical, and, in this case, illegal. That painting doesn't fall under "fair use". It's a copyrighted work by the artist. Just. plain. wrong.

I imagine these people would scream like banshees if the situation were reversed. I guess theft is okay as long as you have a "reason". :rolleyes:

delete

[WGBH]

Or maybe I remarked on something Kit said, you just weren't clear in correcting me, I misunderstood you as a result, and you decided that being insulting was the way to go.

I said:

That web site was created years ago by the former president of the group who is no longer a member. We no longer use that web site. We have a new site and the artwork on our new site was created personally by a ABS member.

How much more clear can I be?

[desertgal]

I said:

That web site was created years ago by the former president of the group who is no longer a member. We no longer use that web site. We have a new site and the artwork on our new site was created personally by a ABS member.

How much more clear can I be?

I asked you if your friend used the painting on the site when she created it, before she resigned her membership. You refuse to answer that. Obviously, you could be much clearer.

You are determined to be right, so okay. If your friend used that painting, without permission or credit, on the site when she created it, before she resigned her membership, it was absolutely, 100%, completely ethical of her.

If she didn't, the current manager of the site, of which she is not a member, is the party infringing on the copyright.

Either way, her ethics are intact. You are right and Kit is wrong. Good enough?

Finis.

[kitakaze]

That web site was created years ago by the former president of the group who is no longer a member. We no longer use that web site. We have a new site and the artwork on our new site was created personally by a ABS member.

That's unfortunate considering it is the very first website that comes up when you google "American Bigfoot Society"...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=american+bigfoot+society&aq=0&oq=American+Bigfoot&aqi=g1

Since that is ripping off Robert Bateman and represents your organization, you or somebody above you might want to contact the person running that website and do something about it.

[WGBH]

That's unfortunate considering it is the very first website that comes up when you google "American Bigfoot Society"...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=american+bigfoot+society&aq=0&oq=American+Bigfoot&aqi=g1

Since that is ripping off Robert Bateman and represents your organization, you or somebody above you might want to contact the person running that website and do something about it.

So, that is your idea of a apology? No, I apologize for wrongly accusing the ABS of copy write infringement on a public forum because of my personal vendetta against its current president?

Your words as you posted them above Kit:

"I am now going to focus much critical attention on Melissa, the SFB, and the ABS."

I guess it does not matter if that critical attention is the truth or not.

[kitakaze]

you're jumping aroud your facts here a bit kit, pertaining to me.
Yes, I am an admin on sfb, I'm also the root admin on the Nesra forum as well as ISRIN, but I had no role in your ban, I abstained, also abs and sfb are seperate entities and I am only a member of the abs, and had no role in the site's design so I am a bit confused as to why you're dragging a quote from the MABRC thread over here just t include me, apples and oranges in my opinion. Hope that clarifies.

Thank you for the clarification, Mike. I don't think I'm jumping on my facts. Remember I said:

That comment is not directed at you, Mike. I only know that your an SFB admin and nothing about if you're with the ABS.

I used your quote because...

1) It talks about giving proper credit.

2) You are connected with the president of the group I was talking about.

3) I didin't want to take it up with John after I suggest that I wouldn't take up SFB/ABS issues with him in this thread.

I expected you abstained from me being removed against protocol from the SFB. I may have missed a PM from you saying so when my inbox was full. I haven't forgotten the NESRA thing from the time we were discussing Kerry Anderholm/Luminous. Please don't think I'm throwing you under a bus for Melissa and friends behaviour. Her website, her sandbox; she can do what she likes whether it follows her rules or not.

I suspect with your sensibilities, it puts you in a weird spot when the owner of the site you are staff of does things like completely write off Bullet Maker for admitting to Bigfoot hoaxing and then does a complete 180 and forbids discussion of whether or not admitted hoaxer Paul Freeman hoaxed any of the prints in his collection in a thread solely devoted to them.

I also remember you didn't attend the SFSP gong show where Melissa Hovey and crew thought they might have encountered Bigfoot so I wanted to point that out. I want you and John to know that anything I have to say about SFB/ABS/Melissa Hovey isn't meant to be personal towards you.

[kitakaze]

So, that is your idea of a apology? No, I apologize for wrongly accusing the ABS of copy write infringement on a public forum because of my personal vendetta against its current president?

Your words as you posted them above Kit:

"I am now going to focus much critical attention on Melissa, the SFB, and the ABS."

I guess it does not matter if that critical attention is the truth or not.

If you want to discuss this with me, OK, but I did offer to drop it with you. Why exactly do I owe anyone an apology? I haven't seen any proof that I'm wrongfully accussing the ABS of copyright infringement.

You said...

"That web site was created years ago by the former president of the group who is no longer a member."

I guess years ago that guy who was the president and is no longer a member decided that while ripping off Robert bateman's art he would also write at the top of the board of directors page:

Melissa Hovey, President


Melissa began her research in Dallas, Texas, she then moved to Ohio in 2008. Melissa
is the current President of the American Bigfoot Society (ABS). Melissa owns a blog and website forum titled The Search for Bigfoot.

In 2007, she began co-hosting an Internet radio show, "Let's Talk Bigfoot," on Talkshoe. Then joined Sean Forker and "The Sasquatch Experience" in February 2008. In June of 2008 she began co-hosting a new program on Talkshoe, with friend and Field Researcher Monica Rawlins, called "The Grey Area" which has now moved to BlogTalk Radio.

Melissa was also featured on the all female expedition episode of the History Channels "MonsterQuest" titled "Bigfoot".

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/board-of-directors.html

So how exactly am I wrongfully accusing the ABS?

Of course I have a beef with Melissa and some of her associates. You don't think I should? That would be really, really weird if you did. She acts cultish so I am responding appropriately. It's not personal. I don't care what she does in her personal life. Only what she does publicly regarding Bigfoot-related issues with her Bigfoot searcher hat on. Is that not fair?

[makaya325]

>>>Did the figures look more like blobs/shadows or like hair covered gorillas on the base?

What part of fuzzy, long range and halo didnt you understand?

>>>You would agree that both of your incidents involved an animal larger than the average man, correct? Because you said the subject in your 2nd sighting cleared a known height mark you mentioned before?

Did you not comprehend what I wrote?

>>>Other than those 2 encounters, have there been any other times in which you may have seen or have heard something you cant explain, and then say "Maybe

I have seen and heard lots of things I couldnt explain for whatever reason at that time but none that trigger a "bigfoot" response

Im sorry LT, I need to read your encounter again on the BFF

[WGBH]

Sad, just when I thought you could man up and do the right thing Kit. Oh well...

[makaya325]

Sad, just when I thought you could man up and do the right thing Kit. Oh well...

Why are you accusing people here of disrespecting you? Is it because we dont all consider bigfoot to be the best explanation?

[WGBH]

Why are you accusing people here of disrespecting you? Is it because we dont all consider bigfoot to be the best explanation?

Uhmm, what the heck are you talking about?

[makaya325]

Uhmm, what the heck are you talking about?

Instead of posting a one sentence fart, i should instead read what everyone is saying and then post for now on/ :blush:

[kitakaze]

Sad, just when I thought you could man up and do the right thing Kit. Oh well...

Why don't you tell me what I'm doing wrong? You said that I'm wrongfully accusing the ABS of copyright infringement. Am I? Show me I am wrongfully accusing the ABS.

Problem for the ABS:

Website: Google> Search: American Bigfoot Society> Result: First website listed shows ripped off Robert Bateman art.

You said...

So take that up with HIM. We have no control of that web site and no longer use it as I stated.

So the fact that your group looks for all the world to anyone who uses Google, Yahoo, whatever like it is ripping off Robert Bateman is not a problem? OK, who put that site together? I'll contact him and tell him that he's ripping off Robert Bateman. I really don't like it when artists get the work stolen and used uncredited.

Which site is the main ABS sight now? Who should I contact to tell them about the problem with the first site that comes up in search?

http://americanbigfootsociety.com/

http://americanbigfoot.blogspot.com/

See, on the site you say is the old one the last report listed was December 30, 2008. That's six months ago:

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/reports.html

What happens when a person who thinks they saw Bigfoot submits a report here?:

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/report-your-sighting.html

Or try to join the ABS and pay money here?:

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/membership-services.html

If the ABS is not using that site, I will apologize for saying the ABS is ripping off Robert Bateman and clarify that the ABS was ripping off Robert Bateman.

Fair enough?

[kitakaze]

Instead of posting a one sentence fart, i should instead read what everyone is saying and then post for now on/ :blush:

:clap:

[makaya325]

:clap:

I know Kitz, I should not be so lazy.

btw i graduated yesturday! :D

[Skeptical Greg]

You just farted twice, after saying you wouldn't ..

This is not a chat room, or instant messaging service Mak. Quit treating it like one..

Read the posts and make a comment if you have something to add, or a counter point to make.. Otherwise, just read and learn something..


( Will someone please report me for being off topic.. Perhaps a mod will delete this .. )

[makaya325]

You just farted twice, after saying you wouldn't ..

This is not a chat room, or instant messaging service Mak. Quit treating it like one..

Read the posts and make a comment if you have something to add, or a counter point to make.. Otherwise, just read and learn something..


( Will someone please report me for being off topic.. Perhaps a mod will delete this .. )

Im sorry greg, but take a chill pill. I only experience this once in life.

Anyway, what seems to be the recent issue on the thread?

[WGBH]

Fair enough Kit, the correct ABS web site is.

http://americanbigfootsociety.com/

I do not know what goes on on the old web site. It probably just needs to be taken down by the owner.

[makaya325]

Fair enough Kit, the correct ABS web site is.

http://americanbigfootsociety.com/

I do not know what goes on on the old web site. it probably just needs to be taken down.

IYO, wgbh, what is the most reliable bigfoot site online?

[WGBH]

IYO, wgbh, what is the most reliable bigfoot site online?

Makaya, what kind of Bigfoot info are you looking for? I like Bobbie Short's web site.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/

[LONGTABBER PE]

Fair enough Kit, the correct ABS web site is.

http://americanbigfootsociety.com/

I do not know what goes on on the old web site. It probably just needs to be taken down by the owner.

With Bill Munns on the board of advisors

I love this part

>>>Bill Munns brings to any investigation a critical eye for analyzing incidents and evidence where there may be questions of some fabricated hoax, as well as appraising any visual or photographic evidence for it's potential to provide useful analytical data for distinguishing something real from something fabricated.

And this

>>> further aid in an investigative effort, and may contribute investigative advice for those doing field investigations, on how they may record or document their investigations in a manner to facilitate later digital visualization analysis.


Bigfoot appears to be pretty safe now

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Longtabber,

In regards to your first "maybe" sighting:

1. Am I correct in assuming that "SC" stands for "South Carolina?" If so, I'm not so sure about your comment about the chance of the thing being a bear was remote (but, granted, you did say that bears did irregularly come into the area). I plugged ""south carolina" +bears coastal" into Google and found (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/bear/residential.html) a (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Blackbear.pdf) few (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/bear/encounters.html) pages (http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/SPN.asp?StudyPlanNum=03056) that seem to say (I've only skimmed them) that bears are more common in that area than one might think. However, I will note that a lot of the focus on these pages seems to be bears/encounters in recent times.

2. You mentioned that one of the details that kept you from fully accepting the idea that you encountered a bear were the side-by-side ice holes. This (http://www.outdoorescapesnewhampshire.com/Photos/BearTrackPattern.jpg) is a trackway consisting of bear prints overlaid enough to show how a quadrupedal animal's tracks can seem like those of a bipedal animal, but not overlaid enough to give the impression of a Bigfoot trackway. Is this anything like what you saw that day?

I won't touch the thickness issue since I don't know the thickness of the ice or how much a bear would have to weigh in order to make holes in it.

3. Your comments about the noise you heard are very interesting. It's been ages since I've listened to any of these, but here are (http://www.junglewalk.com/sound/Bear-sounds.htm) some (http://www.bear.org/Kids/Sounds.html) bear (http://youtube.com/watch?v=N7vvkloC-Ac) vocalization (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eg5eOuIlZRQ) links (http://www.covebear.com/BlackBearVoices.htm) I've gathered up.

Here are some (http://www.elkheaven.com/elk_sounds.htm) elk (http://www.natureguystudio.com/pennsylvania_elk.htm) and deer (http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/practical_bowhunter/deergrunting/deergrunt.html)-related (http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=22&pid=351921) links, in case you're interested.

Then there were those noises it make. I'm no bear expert by far but I've never heard that noise from one since in the wild,zoo or TV.

With the obvious exception of the zoo, were any of the bears in those cases being shot at or spooked by gun shots?

As for the second "maybe" encounter:

1. Were you (and any other witnesses) "level" (I hope I'm using the right term) with the moving object you saw? I ask because I recall that the subject of the Redwoods Bigfoot video was originally estimated to be over 8 feet tall, only for someone recreating the filming conditions in an RV found that the "Bigfoot" was actually much shorter than it appeared. If at all possible, I would like to see whether or not if a similar scenario occurred during your sighting.

2. You mentioned that the object was acting "animal like" and cited its pulling up of grass clumps as an example of this. You also opined that this would not be the behavior of a drunk person. I did a little Googling and did find an anecdotal claim (http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2Bdrunk+%2B%22pulling+up+grass%22&btnG=Search&sitesearch=) (yeah, yeah...I know...) of someone doing that (the third listing from the top of the page). They were on their hands and knees, but they were still pulling up grass. Although it's far from being proof of drunken people doing that sort of thing, I thought it was at least worth noting.

3. You mentioned:

Sister ODA screwing with us- very probable and cannot be ruled out either but "normally" when they do things like that- theres a punchline and if none, they "probe" to see if you actually saw the prank in the first place.

What if someone who was there with you was in on it and reported it back to the lead prankster sometime later?

4. This has nothing to do with whether or not Bigfoot was involved; I'm just curious about something: Why was no action taken if an unidentified person was spotted wandering around a military range? I know little to nothing about military protocol, but that would seem to be the sort of thing to arouse attention. Is there something I'm missing here?

I hope none of these come off as being rude or anything like that. I'm just curious and trying to see if I help you figure out what you saw.

[RayG]

I love this part...

Gotta love their mission statement too. They're going to document the undocumented.

Wouldn't they first have to discover the undiscovered?

RayG

[kitakaze]

Last I checked this thread was called "Bigfoot- anybody seen one"?

I think we should start a new thread called " Bash the ABS"

Yes, and you guys at back-to-sleepy SFB can split your PGF Munns thread into a "whine about JREF skeptics" thread.;)

You're right. All my stuff about SFB/ABS/Melissa and friends is pretty OT. I don't feel particularly bad about it because whenever I try to discuss why you couldn't have had a sleep-related occurence or distorted memory we get about as far as "I saw what I saw". If there's any complaint, I could maybe try something lame and say "well didn't the ABS think they might have seen Bigfoot eyeshine?"

I know, not much finesse. What I find frustrating about situations like this is that I have a conflict between not wanting to be OT (even in a more open thread like this) and adding yet another Bigfoot thread to the pile while more than a few are active. With all the silliness that happened with Bullet Maker doing a lemming run off the face of Bigfootery, I've kind of been giving poor Darren Lee and the MABRC a break and Melissa and friends kookery have put the ABS in my sights, particularly with what a gong show the SFSP expedition was. May be I will start a thread similar to my MABRC threads and call it "American Bigfoot Society - The Mild Bunch." If I do, I expect you to do a good job handing it back to the "scoftics".;)

ETA: Heeey... wait a minute. Rob Gaudet is an ABS and MABRC member. He's another one of those exhibitionist youtube Bigfooters. I forgot about that:

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/abs-investigators.html

Rob's a riot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bVu_z0M0ts

[LONGTABBER PE]

Longtabber,

In regards to your first "maybe" sighting:

1. Am I correct in assuming that "SC" stands for "South Carolina?" If so, I'm not so sure about your comment about the chance of the thing being a bear was remote (but, granted, you did say that bears did irregularly come into the area). I plugged ""south carolina" +bears coastal" into Google and found (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/bear/residential.html) a (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/pdf/Blackbear.pdf) few (http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/bear/encounters.html) pages (http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/SPN.asp?StudyPlanNum=03056) that seem to say (I've only skimmed them) that bears are more common in that area than one might think. However, I will note that a lot of the focus on these pages seems to be bears/encounters in recent times.

2. You mentioned that one of the details that kept you from fully accepting the idea that you encountered a bear were the side-by-side ice holes. This (http://www.outdoorescapesnewhampshire.com/Photos/BearTrackPattern.jpg) is a trackway consisting of bear prints overlaid enough to show how a quadrupedal animal's tracks can seem like those of a bipedal animal, but not overlaid enough to give the impression of a Bigfoot trackway. Is this anything like what you saw that day?

I won't touch the thickness issue since I don't know the thickness of the ice or how much a bear would have to weigh in order to make holes in it.

3. Your comments about the noise you heard are very interesting. It's been ages since I've listened to any of these, but here are (http://www.junglewalk.com/sound/Bear-sounds.htm) some (http://www.bear.org/Kids/Sounds.html) bear (http://youtube.com/watch?v=N7vvkloC-Ac) vocalization (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eg5eOuIlZRQ) links (http://www.covebear.com/BlackBearVoices.htm) I've gathered up.

Here are some (http://www.elkheaven.com/elk_sounds.htm) elk (http://www.natureguystudio.com/pennsylvania_elk.htm) and deer (http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/practical_bowhunter/deergrunting/deergrunt.html)-related (http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=22&pid=351921) links, in case you're interested.



With the obvious exception of the zoo, were any of the bears in those cases being shot at or spooked by gun shots?

As for the second "maybe" encounter:

1. Were you (and any other witnesses) "level" (I hope I'm using the right term) with the moving object you saw? I ask because I recall that the subject of the Redwoods Bigfoot video was originally estimated to be over 8 feet tall, only for someone recreating the filming conditions in an RV found that the "Bigfoot" was actually much shorter than it appeared. If at all possible, I would like to see whether or not if a similar scenario occurred during your sighting.

2. You mentioned that the object was acting "animal like" and cited its pulling up of grass clumps as an example of this. You also opined that this would not be the behavior of a drunk person. I did a little Googling and did find an anecdotal claim (http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2Bdrunk+%2B%22pulling+up+grass%22&btnG=Search&sitesearch=) (yeah, yeah...I know...) of someone doing that (the third listing from the top of the page). They were on their hands and knees, but they were still pulling up grass. Although it's far from being proof of drunken people doing that sort of thing, I thought it was at least worth noting.

3. You mentioned:



What if someone who was there with you was in on it and reported it back to the lead prankster sometime later?

4. This has nothing to do with whether or not Bigfoot was involved; I'm just curious about something: Why was no action taken if an unidentified person was spotted wandering around a military range? I know little to nothing about military protocol, but that would seem to be the sort of thing to arouse attention. Is there something I'm missing here?

I hope none of these come off as being rude or anything like that. I'm just curious and trying to see if I help you figure out what you saw.

>>>>I hope none of these come off as being rude or anything like that. I'm just curious and trying to see if I help you figure out what you saw

Not in the slightest, I've reviewed it many times myself over the years and still undecided

>>>Am I correct in assuming that "SC" stands for "South Carolina?"

Yep

>>>I'm not so sure about your comment about the chance of the thing being a bear was remote (but, granted, you did say that bears did irregularly come into the area).

Yeah, 2 or 3 have been killed in that exact area over the years so its not unheard of by any means. I suppose it depends on how one describes "remote" and the weight one puts on it. Its a fact we have a small bear population and once in a while one gets shot but I compare it to deer and the hunter ratio.

We have one of the longest deer seasons and higest bag limits in the US and deer hunting is like a "religion" ( there are plants here that literally shut down for opening day because of the call in rate so they call it a holiday) So, with that many hunters ( still and drives with dogs) in the field, to only hear about 1 bear every decade means they are pretty scarce.

>>>Is this anything like what you saw that day?

Cant see it due to bandwidth and internet restrictions in place here. Since I cant see it the description was "holes" similar to a walking path punched thru roughly 1-1.5 inches of ice. ( with a lot of broken sections) as well as hearing the punching while waiting for sun to rise

>>>I won't touch the thickness issue since I don't know the thickness of the ice or how much a bear would have to weigh in order to make holes in it.

Hardly a quantifiable metric but we walked with no cracking where we were at ( on a beaten path used for years even before i was born) but this was a swamp with sloughs,potholes and fed from the river. Some shaded, some not- some with running water- some not and the ground basically frozen. I wouldnt begin to try to make any kind of definitive estimate on uniform thickness.

>>>Your comments about the noise you heard are very interesting. It's been ages since I've listened to any of these, but

I've tried to rethink the sound many times over the years but it was so fleeting that it gets garbled even in my own mind so I would consider further attempts as unreliable out of the gate.

I know this from raising my birds that they often make "sounds" ( especially when we feed them) that arent commonly associated with their recorded sounds. I can easily see where something like a shotgun suddenly breaking the calm at the first of daybreak could spark a "unique" sound. I know cannon fire does here LOL.

>>>Were you (and any other witnesses) "level" (I hope I'm using the right term) with the moving object you saw? I ask because I recall that the subject of the Redwoods Bigfoot video was originally estimated to be over 8 feet tall, only for someone recreating the filming conditions in an RV found that the "Bigfoot" was actually much shorter than it appeared. If at all possible, I would like to see whether or not if a similar scenario occurred during your sighting.

We were very level in that case. Remember, this was a formal training class. Each student had to do a map recon, measure distances/elevation from possible inaccessable routes/ firing positions( for possible indirect fire if needed) and fill out range cards. They walked the range and all that during the day prior.

>>>You mentioned that the object was acting "animal like" and cited its pulling up of grass clumps as an example of this. You also opined that this would not be the behavior of a drunk person.

I meant that inclusively- not just that lone act. I dont rule a drunk out but for it to have been a drunk- he would have had to walk about 4 miles into the "back 40" of Lewis where the ranges were ( past range Control and the MP's and gates) ( no vehicles because headlights show up like lighthouses on NVG's and if we had seen that, we would have reported that to RC) and then amble several hundred meters down range. Just to amble for 20 odd minutes or so.

Again, possible but unlikely

>>>What if someone who was there with you was in on it and reported it back to the lead prankster sometime later?

Possible but I would expect a much higher level of prank from an SF soldier. I would also expect some kind of punchline. (I've seen some good ones and if a prank- this wasnt one of them)

Also, they would consider the level of these "trainees"- this was sniper qualification for soldiers ( E-4-E-7) who were tabbed either Ranger, SF or both and several on their way to Delta Selection. They were not E-nothings from basic on their first day in the Army and first bivouac. To waste something so mundane on that level of class would be rather insulting to the class and to the perps.

>>>This has nothing to do with whether or not Bigfoot was involved; I'm just curious about something: Why was no action taken if an unidentified person was spotted wandering around a military range? I know little to nothing about military protocol, but that would seem to be the sort of thing to arouse attention. Is there something I'm missing here?

Because just because someone isnt readily "identified" by one group training doesnt mean they arent authorized to be there. They could be another unit training, soldiers lost, civilians hunting(in authorized areas) people parking or any number of things.

Had they been making signals ( such as yelling/go to "white light"[ universal signal for some kind of trouble in training] or obvious things like driving a civilian vehicle, screwing or drinking or even talking loudly) then it would certainly be reported to RC who would notify the MP's.

Normally ( especially in night training ops) the unit in the field is informed of other units in the area doing their thing and their expected AO ( so hopefully you dont interfere with each others mission or make camp where vehicles might rumble thru) and we were as well. There were other units out there.

[kitakaze]

Fair enough Kit, the correct ABS web site is.

http://americanbigfootsociety.com/

I do not know what goes on on the old web site. It probably just needs to be taken down by the owner.

Who made it? Who's the owner? I would like to know who the guy who swiped Bateman's art is. Why did he go from being the president (though he listed Melissa as president) to not being in the group?

[kitakaze]

Makaya, what kind of Bigfoot info are you looking for? I like Bobbie Short's web site.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/

We all like Bobbie's site. Bobbie thinks P&G blasted Patty. I like that idea, too. It's avant garde.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Gotta love their mission statement too. They're going to document the undocumented.

Wouldn't they first have to discover the undiscovered?

RayG

And this one

>>>an Advisory Board has been established to help guide the American Bigfoot Society with the latest in technology and scientific standards.

Chilcutt I can see. He brings legitimate relevant skills to the table even if his conclusions regarding BF dermals are questionable. I hope the Munns report isnt the jewel in their crown as an example of their scientific standards.

This one caught my eye too

>>>we hope to gather a database of REAL sightings and encounters

I'm certainly not anti Melissa and the ABS and I know what they are meaning and trying to say but would respectfully submit to them that they reword that one.

If they obtain even one "real" sighting- not only have they made the scientific record books but they will have trumped and basically put the whole lot of other BF orgs out of business.

I would use something like:

The ABS strives to maintain the highest standards of quality and accepted scientific legitimacy in our efforts and as a result the reports submitted for inclusion to our database are carefully screened according to our acceptance standards ( and post them somewhere) and individually investigated as is possible to ensure only the most reliable accounts are accepted for publication.

I would recommend wordsmithing this one too. A professional organization shouldnt begin a sentence in their mission statement with a preposition.

>>>By using methods tried by established sciences we hope to catalog this primate without the need to take the life of it.

Something like:

Our objective is to catalog and present evidence that moves to establish the factual existance of this elusive animal by the utilization of established and proven methods rather than the ultimate need to provide a physical specimen.

[Aepervius]

[QUOTE=RayG;4854259]I would have to agree with that, it seems to have been created as a derogatory term. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here I would disagree. I don't consider 'footer' derogatory, as it's a concise way of referring to 'someone who is pursuing the mystery of bigfoot', or 'someone who has an ongoing interest/enthusiasm for the topic'. I would consider myself a 'footer', living in 'Footerville', somewhere in the land of 'Bigfootdom'.

I'm perfectly fine with someone referring to me using those terms, and I don't see anything derogatory about them.


That might be how you interpret it, but I mostly saw it used as a deragatory term "he is a footer" , "that is just another example of footer science" etc...

The question whether the term is derogatory should be left with the group to which the term was used. Is the term used by themselves as a whole or not ? Is it used by those which dislike that group ? Scoffic , bleever are quite clearly belong to that category : made up term to disparage a group. Up to now I thought that footer belonged to that group too, as I saw the usage. But I am ready to be corrected.

[WGBH]

Who made it? Who's the owner? I would like to know who the guy who swiped Bateman's art is. Why did he go from being the president (though he listed Melissa as president) to not being in the group?

If you need information about the ABS and it's workings feel free to contact the BOD. It is not my place to talk about such things as I am only a member and I have nothing to do with that.

[kitakaze]

:dl:

Yeah, Melissa is going to help me find out which person from her Bigfooter club swiped Robert Bateman's art...

*Miss Swan* John, you make a funny! You crazy! Oh, you make a me laugh! :D *Miss Swan*

[WGBH]

Yes, and you guys at back-to-sleepy SFB can split your PGF Munns thread into a "whine about JREF skeptics" thread.;)

You're right. All my stuff about SFB/ABS/Melissa and friends is pretty OT. I don't feel particularly bad about it because whenever I try to discuss why you couldn't have had a sleep-related occurence or distorted memory we get about as far as "I saw what I saw".

You and everyone here can discuss your opinions about my encounter all you want. I listen to all of them, but I am not required to subscribe to them.


If there's any complaint, I could maybe try something lame and say "well didn't the ABS think they might have seen Bigfoot eyeshine?"

The key word there is "might". Eyeshine is not proof. And we do not
submit it is such. You are confusing someone telling about a experience on a radio show as submitting it as evidence. Speaking of lame.



I know, not much finesse. What I find frustrating about situations like this is that I have a conflict between not wanting to be OT (even in a more open thread like this) and adding yet another Bigfoot thread to the pile while more than a few are active. With all the silliness that happened with Bullet Maker doing a lemming run off the face of Bigfootery, I've kind of been giving poor Darren Lee and the MABRC a break and Melissa and friends kookery have put the ABS in my sights, particularly with what a gong show the SFSP expedition was. May be I will start a thread similar to my MABRC threads and call it "American Bigfoot Society - The Mild Bunch." If I do, I expect you to do a good job handing it back to the "scoftics".;)

Kit one of the first things you and I ever spoke about regarding Bigfoot was Mr Bilby and his hoaxing. You do understand that most in this field never bought into anything he said or did, correct? He admitted hoaxing to me,
I posted it for all to see, and he is done and good riddence.

Please do not infer that the ABS has anything to do with hoaxing by comparing us to Bullet maker. That is really crossing a line. You know that none of us in the ABS will stand for hoaxing. You may continue your silly personal attacks on mself or the research techniques applied, but do not go there.

ETA: Heeey... wait a minute. Rob Gaudet is an ABS and MABRC member. He's another one of those exhibitionist youtube Bigfooters. I forgot about that:

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/abs-investigators.html

Rob's a riot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bVu_z0M0ts

Great, now you want to make fun of a man that neither one of us know anything about.

[WGBH]

:dl:

Yeah, Melissa is going to help me find out which person from her Bigfooter club swiped Robert Bateman's art...

*Miss Swan* John, you make a funny! You crazy! Oh, you make a me laugh! :D *Miss Swan*

Well, you throw them down the middle of the plate and I will hit it out of the park... :D

[kitakaze]

You and everyone here can discuss your opinions about my encounter all you want. I listen to all of them, but I am not required to subscribe to them.

That's a bizarre thing to say. No one is inferring that you must believe the alternatives we suggest, only that you fairly consider them. I don't think you've fairly considered some of the alternatives.

Once again I ask, given that repetition and replication of the unique circumstances involved is not necessary to rule out the possibility of sleep-related occurence or distorted memory for your claim that 27 years ago in a deerstand up a tree along the Pasquotank River, NC in the early morning after being disoriented and feeling very groggy that you saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape, why is it impossible that you did not see what you thought you saw?

Vivid sleep-related hallucinations occur as do vivid but distorted memories. This is known, tested, and proven by science. What is that the largest land mammal in North America is a bipedal gargantuan ape that exists in places such as small swathes of woods like where the Pasquotank is completely surrounded by farmland and cities.

Kit one of the first things you and I ever spoke about regarding Bigfoot was Mr Bilby and his hoaxing. You do understand that most in this field never bought into anything he said or did, correct? He admitted hoaxing to me,
I posted it for all to see, and he is done and good riddence.


Good job, that was.

Please do not infer that the ABS has anything to do with hoaxing by comparing us to Bullet maker. That is really crossing a line. You know that none of us in the ABS will stand for hoaxing. You may continue your silly personal attacks on mself or the research techniques applied, but do not go there.

:boggled:

No, wait...

:eye-poppi

Ahhhhh...

:jaw-dropp

Say what?? I think you may have missed the number of times that I pointed out that the very president of the ABS stands for hoaxing. Dude...

*Paul* *Freeman*

Yes, waiter, I'd like the irony platter with a side order of contradiction and a cup of I-can't-believe-he-said-that.

Wow. John, Paul Freeman was an admitted hoaxer. Not only does Melissa argue for the veracity of Paul Freeman evidence because it was touched by Saint Meldrum, she literally forbids discussing the possibility of whether any of his casts were faked in an SFB thread solely devoted to his cast collection. That by it's very definition is tolerating hoaxing. Not to mention bizarre cognitive dissonance.

Wow. Kinda missed that one, I guess.

Great, now you want to make fun of a man that neither one of us know anything about.

I know Rob was one of the MABRC guys who thought the group was seeing Bigfoots at Bullet's place and is also an ABS guy. Let's leave Rob alone in this thread, though. I posted enough of his videos in the MABRC threads.

[WGBH]

[QUOTE=kitakaze;4856234]T



:boggled:

No, wait...

:eye-poppi

Ahhhhh...

:jaw-dropp

Say what?? I think you may have missed the number of times that I pointed out that the very president of the ABS stands for hoaxing. Dude...

*Paul* *Freeman*

Yes, waiter, I'd like the irony platter with a side order of contradiction and a cup of I-can't-believe-he-said-that.

Wow. John, Paul Freeman was an admitted hoaxer. Not only does Melissa argue for the veracity of Paul Freeman evidence because it was touched by Saint Meldrum, she literally forbids discussing the possibility of whether any of his casts were faked in an SFB thread solely devoted to his cast collection. That by it's very definition is tolerating hoaxing. Not to mention bizarre cognitive dissonance.

Wow. Kinda missed that one, I guess.

QUOTE]


That is not true Kit. Melissa does not defend Paul Freeman. She was asking you to NOT disrupt that thread about the cast scans with hoaxing. She told you to start that conversation in another thread. That thread was about the scans.

[mikeyx]

Unethical, and, in this case, illegal. That painting doesn't fall under "fair use". It's a copyrighted work by the artist. Just. plain. wrong.

I imagine these people would scream like banshees if the situation were reversed. I guess theft is okay as long as you have a "reason". :rolleyes:

You do realize that you are in fact pointing to an old version of the website created by an indivdual who is no longer a member and not here to defend themselves, making your point both ******** and below the belt.

[mikeyx]

Thank you for the clarification, Mike. I don't think I'm jumping on my facts. Remember I said:



I used your quote because...

1) It talks about giving proper credit.

The issue I was referring was in a different thread however and regardless of this argument the MABRc site has done this chronicly as opposed to a single or two in question. Regarding the old site, I had involvement in it's design.

2) You are connected with the president of the group I was talking about.

it's a better question for the management as I am only a member.


I expected you abstained from me being removed against protocol from the SFB. I may have missed a PM from you saying so when my inbox was full.

That's exactly what happened, I tried pming you twice, you need to clean out your pms ;)


I haven't forgotten the NESRA thing from the time we were discussing Kerry Anderholm/Luminous. Please don't think I'm throwing you under a bus for Melissa and friends behaviour. Her website, her sandbox; she can do what she likes whether it follows her rules or not. {/quote]

The Nesra/Kerry was resolved and is unrelated, we (NESRA) offered him the choice of shaping up or shipping out after he became a huge liability, and he chose the later. he is now a member of the MABRC, for which I wish them luck with that...

[quote[ I suspect with your sensibilities, it puts you in a weird spot when the owner of the site you are staff of does things like completely write off Bullet Maker for admitting to Bigfoot hoaxing and then does a complete 180 and forbids discussion of whether or not admitted hoaxer Paul Freeman hoaxed any of the prints in his collection in a thread solely devoted to them.

Not really, on that Mel is a big girl and fights her own battles, it's simply not my fight or problem, so I'm not involving myself with it. The reason I was vocal regarding the MABRC theft of info is that last I knew they had an old link to an old version of the NESRA website in their so called encyclopedia that was created by Anderholm and is presented in a inaccurate (and I'm being kind and not saying fraudulent) manner. In doing this DW Lee has chosen to attempt to rewrite for group he was never involved in but nevertheless stuck his nose in, and that is why it's a peeve. After more than one attempt to point this out the entry remains there last I knew and is at best irresponsible.

I also remember you didn't attend the SFSP gong show where Melissa Hovey and crew thought they might have encountered Bigfoot so I wanted to point that out. I want you and John to know that anything I have to say about SFB/ABS/Melissa Hovey isn't meant to be personal towards you.

Their exped was a bit afar in the field for me, so no I didn't make it. Until they do one closer, I'm the guy in the field for my neighborhood. But thats as much involvement in this thread as I really care to have, I'll trust you to understand that.

[kitakaze]

That is not true Kit. Melissa does not defend Paul Freeman. She was asking you to NOT disrupt that thread about the cast scans with hoaxing. She told you to start that conversation in another thread. That thread was about the scans.

1) Please don't take this as anything other than a friendly offer but would you like a hand with figuring out the multi-quoting? Some people have trouble with it and it makes things a lot smoother and easier to understand for readers when it's done properly.

2) I was hoping you'd respond to the question in the first part of my post you were answering there. Particularly because that is actually the topic of this thread and I don't want to feel like I'm being OT all the time.

3) Are you telling me that Melissa doesn't advocate the veracity of casts that are also advocated by Jeff Meldrum and come from Paul Freeman? You know what is at the source of her false accusations to Matt Crowley, right?

4) I don't have a clue what you mean about scans. From the very beginning of the thread people were commenting with allusion to Freeman's hoaxing. Shall I quote some of those posts? The thread is about the images of the casts but not the casts themselves? Yeah, that makes sense.:boggled:

Tell me, what exactly does one discuss about the scans of the massive cast collection of an admitted hoaxer if not the veracity of the casts?

Oooo... this scan is nice. Oh, I like that one. What kind of scanner do you think was used?:rolleyes:

[WGBH]

3) Are you telling me that Melissa doesn't advocate the veracity of casts that are also advocated by Jeff Meldrum and come from Paul Freeman? You know what is at the source of her false accusations to Matt Crowley, right?

I am not telling you anything except what happened on the particular thread.I could care less about Crowley's and Melissa's casting tiff.

4) I don't have a clue what you mean about scans. From the very beginning of the thread people were commenting with allusion to Freeman's hoaxing. Shall I quote some of those posts? The thread is about the images of the casts but not the casts themselves? Yeah, that makes sense.:boggled:

The people who were commenting about hoaxing from the beginning were you and other sceptics and you were asked to stop and take it to another thread.Yes the thread was about the cast images.


Tell me, what exactly does one discuss about the scans of the massive cast collection of an admitted hoaxer if not the veracity of the casts?

Oooo... this scan is nice. Oh, I like that one. What kind of scanner do you think was used?:rolleyes:

Yes

[makaya325]

Lt at bff-Anyway, it walked around an old target deuce &1/2 and thats when it got interesting- the size in relation to the hood- then it moved ( about 50 meters) and walked behind an old target M113 APC.

Thats what got everyones attention- it stood chest,shoulders and head above the M113[ tracks were off, it was sitting on roadwheels] ( now its about 100 meters from us- still not a clear view from Gen I equipment)- it then just 'ambled' on its slow way to the other side of the range periodically stopping.stooping and going until it went into the woods.

When this thing cleared the M113, were any of your men amazed at the size of the thing?

[LONGTABBER PE]

When this thing cleared the M113, were any of your men amazed at the size of the thing?

What part of

>>>Thats what got everyones attention

escaped you?

[makaya325]

What part of

>>>Thats what got everyones attention

escaped you?

I know that, but what i was asking is if any of your men wondered "What is that"? Did any of your men assume confidently it was a such and such?

[kitakaze]

John, in your following quoted post you responded to only items 3 and 4. Why not 1 and 2? Especially 2 because you were making an issue of things other than sightings being discussed and 2 is directly referencing an important question about you alleged sighting.

I am not telling you anything except what happened on the particular thread.I could care less about Crowley's and Melissa's casting tiff.

It's weird that you would say that because then it is like you neither comprehend the issue or care about the validity of the statement that nobody in the ABS tolerates hoaxers. Dude, the president of the ABS tolerates hoaxers. Some she does, some she doesn't. She tolerates and actually argues in support of an admitted hoaxer because that person has the support of her idols Saint Medrum and Cardinal Chilcutt.

You say you could care less about her conflict with Matt but you're having a kind of cognitive dissonance in facing what is at issue. Matt showed that casting artifacts were responsible for the details that Chilcutt and Meldrum were calling dermatoglyphics on a Freeman cast. Chilcutt has declined attending Bigfoot conventions and asked for Matt to go in his place. Matt's work has been replicated by other people. Melissa falsely accused Matt of illegally obtaining volcanic ash. Melissa hounded me pathetically and very OT to try and engage her on the stupid subject at SFB. I told her I wasn't interested and she kept pushing it.

Paul Freeman admitted to being a hoaxer. The president of the ABS tolerates a hoaxer. Done and Doner.

The people who were commenting about hoaxing from the beginning were you and other sceptics and you were asked to stop and take it to another thread.Yes the thread was about the cast images.


Wrong. Here come the posts...

Melissa deleted this one. I guess it was really insulting, nasty, and OT:rolleyes::


This is not the "Did Paul Freeman hoax" thread.
Do not hijack this thread.

Hijack the thread? Seriously? This thread is about Paul Freeman's cast collection. If we can not discuss what we think of the casts, including whether we think they are real or not (which is an absolutely fair question considering the man was an admitted hoaxer), then what exactly is it we are supposed to discuss.
Melissa, could you or someone else explain this to me so I can understand? I don't want to post off-topic and would like to know what this is about so that I might decide to participate in the thread or not. Is there something different about these casts because meldrum thinks some of them are real?


And this one...



This is not the "Did Paul Freeman hoax" thread.
Do not hijack this thread.

Just wanted to add that the following posts I think gave the impression that discussing which casts we though were not real was not highjacking the thread:
I know a lot of people had misperceptions about Freeman being a hoaxer, but it can't be denied that he found some very interesting and hard to fake evidence.

I've heard and read so much about these casts. I look forward to looking at these and making some determinations for myself.



What does the Doc think about these casts ? He may have found some intresting things but he has admited to makeing fake casts so what leads anyone to beleave these are real ?

If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Oh my dear sweet baby Jesus, look at how horrificly rude I am in those posts. So John, when you say "the people who were commenting about hoaxing from the beginning were you and other sceptics"...

No, no. Non. Nein. Niet. Chigau. I'm so sorry, that's incorrect, mistaken, and/or made up. As you can see the people commenting from the beginning were not me and other sceptics. There is the proof that it was in fact Bigfoot enthusiasts who were first commenting on hoaxing. Is that correct? Yes or no, please. Note that those comment are not of a oh-my-those-scans-are-lovely nature. See, that is why i had the forsight to save my posts and the posts of others at the SFB. I knew that because of Melissa's intolerant groupie mentality that I would have posts deleted and later people would be making up falsehoods about what I was doing there. I promise you, John, that neither Melissa or any other SFB member will have to worry about such a thing at the JREF. We can handle whatever it is you guys want to assert.

Tell me, what exactly does one discuss about the scans of the massive cast collection of an admitted hoaxer if not the veracity of the casts?

Oooo... this scan is nice. Oh, I like that one. What kind of scanner do you think was used?

Yes

Unfortunately that just isn't true and the way the enthusiasts were discussing from the beginning.

[kitakaze]

The issue I was referring was in a different thread however and regardless of this argument the MABRc site has done this chronicly as opposed to a single or two in question. Regarding the old site, I had involvement in it's design.

It doesn't sound like you're saying you were the one that lifeted Bateman's art. BTW, this is not the first time there's been an issue about Melissa's site using art without permission, is it? That's rhetorical, you don't have to answer.

2) You are connected with the president of the group I was talking about. it's a better question for the management as I am only a member.

You're right, I don't think I can expect much answers from you guys on this. Since I can be quite sure that Melissa would not tell me who in her group ripped off Robert Bateman's art and also because I know Melissa is reading this thread, I'll say it directly to her.

Hey, Melissa. Again a website associated with you and your Bigfoot club is using someone's art without permission. The first website that comes up when you google the ABS steals Robert Bateman's art. It's no different than physically walking away with one of his paintings. It's stealing. You may not have been the one to do it and think you can hide behind that excuse but it's for the club which you're the leader of. The website doesn't show some other president, it's you. If you don't want your Bigfooter club to look like hack thieves who don't care about stealing from artists, you should do something about that.

BTW, a tip for your internet radio shows when you are talking about UFO's and Bigfoot...

Please figure out the difference between "seen" and "saw". As in, "I saw some eyeshine over there", not "I seen some eyeshine over there".

You're not a stupid lady and that makes you sound like a hillbilly.

That's exactly what happened, I tried pming you twice, you need to clean out your pms ;)

Please send that PM again, if you can.

Not really, on that Mel is a big girl and fights her own battles, it's simply not my fight or problem, so I'm not involving myself with it. The reason I was vocal regarding the MABRC theft of info is that last I knew they had an old link to an old version of the NESRA website in their so called encyclopedia that was created by Anderholm and is presented in a inaccurate (and I'm being kind and not saying fraudulent) manner. In doing this DW Lee has chosen to attempt to rewrite for group he was never involved in but nevertheless stuck his nose in, and that is why it's a peeve. After more than one attempt to point this out the entry remains there last I knew and is at best irresponsible.

Looks to me like she gets other people to do her dirty work for her. Like, Washingtonian for example. I won't go even more OT with MABRC or NESRA stuff but I really like the head of your group, Chris Bartow. I've had friendly and helpful discussions with him in the past.

Their exped was a bit afar in the field for me, so no I didn't make it. Until they do one closer, I'm the guy in the field for my neighborhood. But thats as much involvement in this thread as I really care to have, I'll trust you to understand that.

You bet, I understand.

[WGBH]

Complete nonsense Kit.

You picked and chose what posts you put in your response and then twisted it for your use. I will not cross post from the SFB here to prove you wrong. You forgot the post where a Admin from ANOTHER large forum noticed what you were doing and said " I am glad to see that our forum is not alone in thread hijacking." That is a pretty independent witness to your behavior Kit. He had no horse in that race. Can we forget the MANY times you apologized (or lied) to Melissa and then went right back and attempted to hijack the thread again. Anyone with a SFB account can go there and see the truth. They can also see how many times you were warned.

You also keep bringing up that Crowley vs Melissa casting debate nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with that thread or your ban. It is simply a way for you to attack Melissa. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain folks". People in this field on BOTH sides of that tired argument are not interested. Newsflash, no Bigfoot casts (with or without supposed dermal ridges) are evidence of Bigfoot.

Knock yourself out with your whine fest about Melissa and what a travesty it was for her to ban you. Are you going to give her a cool super villain name next? You think that if you scream loud enough and long enough people will listen. Some of us learn to ignore children who throw tantrums when they get punished. Consider yourself ignored.

How stupid am I for hijacking a thread for arguing about Kit hijacking a thread on SFB? Pretty stupid. I'm done. Sorry to the Mods here.

If anyone want's to discuss or even argue about Bigfoot. I will be around.

[makaya325]

Kitz, are you banned from the bff? Because i see alot of members here are banned. Oh well, must be the mean ol' scientists who ruin's everybodys favorite imaginary biped.

[kitakaze]

Complete nonsense Kit.

You picked and chose what posts you put in your response and then twisted it for your use.

Why, yes. Yes, John, I did pick and choose what posts I put in my response. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that all of those posts by other members who weren't skeptics and were making reference to Paul Freeman's hoaxing preceeded any post that I and then HarryH made. Hello, McFly? Is this thing on?

Your claim:

"The people who were commenting about hoaxing from the beginning were you and other sceptics..."

Oops for you. That wasn't true, was it, John? Shall I post the post numbers and exact times and dates that those Bigfoot enthusiasts like Henry May, Creekfreak, and Reverend Stone made those posts so you can see exactly how long before my and Harry's comments they were? I would just tell any person who isn't banned to just go over and see for themselves but uh oh, Melissa turtled her board and put all new accounts on preview. Oh noes... mehbeh more skaptiks r cuming.

I will not cross post from the SFB here to prove you wrong. You forgot the post where a Admin from ANOTHER large forum noticed what you were doing and said " I am glad to see that our forum is not alone in thread hijacking." That is a pretty independent witness to your behavior Kit. He had no horse in that race.

You mean another Bigfoot enthusiast who posts in another Bigfoot board felt uncomfortable with me pointing out exactly what such a massive collection of casts by Freeman implied? For example, that he would have casted at least 26 individual Bigfoots in his small area alone?

:rolleyes:

*ding dong* *ding dong*

It's reality again, don't answer the door.;)

Can we forget the MANY times you apologized (or lied) to Melissa and then went right back and attempted to hijack the thread again. Anyone with a SFB account can go there and see the truth. They can also see how many times you were warned.

Being warned by a Bigfoot enthusiast groupie for pointing out the obvious in a civil manner in discussion where the comments are perfectly relevant worries me not.

You also keep bringing up that Crowley vs Melissa casting debate nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with that thread or your ban. It is simply a way for you to attack Melissa. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain folks". People in this field on BOTH sides of that tired argument are not interested. Newsflash, no Bigfoot casts (with or without supposed dermal ridges) are evidence of Bigfoot.

Actually no. John. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that no ABS member tolerates hoaxers is simply a fantasy. It's not about whether or not casts are evidence of Bigfoot. That's solely your opinion, not in line with that of Meldrum, Melissa, and a throng of other Bigfooters, and a diversion tactic to try and steer away the conversation from your claim.

Knock yourself out with your whine fest about Melissa and what a travesty it was for her to ban you. Are you going to give her a cool super villain name next? You think that if you scream loud enough and long enough people will listen. Some of us learn to ignore children who throw tantrums when they get punished. Consider yourself ignored.

I don't think it was a travesty that Melissa kicked me out. I think it was the inevitable outcome of a board owned by a person for whom Woods & Wildmen is a way of life and its stars are her idols. But your right, I can't resist the suggestion for a cool supervillain name. It's got to be something appropriate for pro wrestling just like The Burg.

How about Melissa Hovey aka The Hovercraft?

Though rather noisy and conspicuous The Hovercraft glides effortlessly from Bigfootery to Ufology. The Hovercraft is used for support for bigger and more powerful members of "The Research".

Signature move: The Sandbox Slingshot. Used with little provocation whereby the Hovercraft tags a teammate to throw you out of the ring.

How stupid am I for hijacking a thread for arguing about Kit hijacking a thread on SFB? Pretty stupid. I'm done. Sorry to the Mods here.

If anyone want's to discuss or even argue about Bigfoot. I will be around.

:dl:

Says the guy who repeatedly ignores requests to address the simplest questions regarding his sighting while engaging in the topic he complained about as OT.

I've lost count how many times John ignores this:

That's a bizarre thing to say. No one is inferring that you must believe the alternatives we suggest, only that you fairly consider them. I don't think you've fairly considered some of the alternatives.

Once again I ask, given that repetition and replication of the unique circumstances involved is not necessary to rule out the possibility of sleep-related occurence or distorted memory for your claim that 27 years ago in a deerstand up a tree along the Pasquotank River, NC in the early morning after being disoriented and feeling very groggy that you saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape, why is it impossible that you did not see what you thought you saw?

Vivid sleep-related hallucinations occur as do vivid but distorted memories. This is known, tested, and proven by science. What is not known, tested, and proven by science is that the largest land mammal in North America is a bipedal gargantuan ape that exists in places such as small swathes of woods like where the Pasquotank is completely surrounded by farmland and cities.

Go ahead and ignore me, John. That's what you're already doing regarding your sighting. I guess as it turns out you can't give it as good as you get.

[WGBH]

Why, yes. Yes, John, I did pick and choose what posts I put in my response. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that all of those posts by other members who weren't skeptics and were making reference to Paul Freeman's hoaxing preceeded any post that I and then HarryH made. Hello, McFly? Is this thing on?

Your claim:

"The people who were commenting about hoaxing from the beginning were you and other sceptics..."

Oops for you. That wasn't true, was it, John? Shall I post the post numbers and exact times and dates that those Bigfoot enthusiasts like Henry May, Creekfreak, and Reverend Stone made those posts so you can see exactly how long before my and Harry's comments they were? I would just tell any person who isn't banned to just go over and see for themselves but uh oh, Melissa turtled her board and put all new accounts on preview. Oh noes... mehbeh more skaptiks r cuming.

They were not disrupting the thread like you were. I should have said disrupting and not commenting. Strone only said he will make up his own mind and did not mention hoaxing. And I find it hilarious that you would quote and use Creek Freak to defend yourself, especially since you attack him constantly for being a hoaxer. So I guess that we can say that YOU support a hoaxer too right Kit? Hypocrite. So that leaves Henry and he only mentioned it, he did not disrupt the thread.

You mean another Bigfoot enthusiast who posts in another Bigfoot board felt uncomfortable with me pointing out exactly what such a massive collection of casts by Freeman implied? For example, that he would have casted at least 26 individual Bigfoots in his small area alone?

No I mean an administrator from the largest Bigfoot forum noticed you acting like a troll as you normally do.



Being warned by a Bigfoot enthusiast groupie for pointing out the obvious in a civil manner in discussion where the comments are perfectly relevant worries me not.

And acting like a troll, scoftic will get you banned, and it did.


Actually no. John. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that no ABS member tolerates hoaxers is simply a fantasy. It's not about whether or not casts are evidence of Bigfoot. That's solely your opinion, not in line with that of Meldrum, Melissa, and a throng of other Bigfooters, and a diversion tactic to try and steer away the conversation from your claim.

It is all about opinion and yours is no more relevent then anyones. including mine, silly boy.

I don't think it was a travesty that Melissa kicked me out.

Neither do most of the members there.



:dl:

Says the guy who repeatedly ignores requests to address the simplest questions regarding his sighting while engaging in the topic he complained about as OT.

I've lost count how many times John ignores this:

You are confusing ignore for disregard.



Go ahead and ignore me, John.



OK

[Drewbot]

John- You abstained from voting for the banning of Kitakaze. And you act like it was a gesture to show that you didn't really want him banned.

I'm just curious what your voting record is on past bannings. Have you voted to ban people before?, Have you abstained before?, Have you voted not to ban people before?

Abstaining from voting in this case, might be a big deal if you always vote yes or no, on banning, but it wouldn't be a big deal if you ALWAYS abstain from voting for banning.

NOWHATIMEAN?

[mikeyx]

It doesn't sound like you're saying you were the one that lifeted Bateman's art. BTW, this is not the first time there's been an issue about Melissa's site using art without permission, is it? That's rhetorical, you don't have to answer.

What I know is that it ended up being a major league catfight for many people myself included and I wasted mucho energy trying to stay out of it last year so thats about my input on it.


I won't go even more OT with MABRC or NESRA stuff but I really like the head of your group, Chris Bartow. I've had friendly and helpful discussions with him in the past.

Actually Chris is one of four board members for the Group, as am I just to clarify but i appreciate you not dragging Nesra into this subject, it really has nothing to do with them. Matters with Anderholm are considered ancient history also, fwiw.

[WGBH]

John- You abstained from voting for the banning of Kitakaze. And you act like it was a gesture to show that you didn't really want him banned.

I'm just curious what your voting record is on past bannings. Have you voted to ban people before?, Have you abstained before?, Have you voted not to ban people before?

Abstaining from voting in this case, might be a big deal if you always vote yes or no, on banning, but it wouldn't be a big deal if you ALWAYS abstain from voting for banning.

NOWHATIMEAN?

It was not in support of his troll behavior. I just do not support banning anyone and would not do it unless someone threatens another member. I was content to just edit his posts. Some people do not have the patience for that and he was banned.

I have not been involved with any other ban of a member there,we have not had any since I was a Mod or Admin. The majority of the members can behave like adults.

[mikeyx]

Kitz, are you banned from the bff? Because i see alot of members here are banned. Oh well, must be the mean ol' scientists who ruin's everybodys favorite imaginary biped.

Just my opinion, but the BFF is whole seperate political hornets nest.

[mikeyx]

John- You abstained from voting for the banning of Kitakaze. And you act like it was a gesture to show that you didn't really want him banned.

I'm just curious what your voting record is on past bannings. Have you voted to ban people before?, Have you abstained before?, Have you voted not to ban people before?

Abstaining from voting in this case, might be a big deal if you always vote yes or no, on banning, but it wouldn't be a big deal if you ALWAYS abstain from voting for banning.

NOWHATIMEAN?

For the record, I abstained as well and having nothing to hide about it, the main reason being, it seems the whole situation is over the Munn's report upon which I have no major opinion. Thus I abstained.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Just my opinion, but the BFF is whole seperate political hornets nest.

aint that the truth

[Drewbot]

What part of

>>>Thats what got everyones attention

escaped you?

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 thishttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_197054a4a1f2cbbe95.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16807)

[Correa Neto]

Uhm...

Ltes try to get back on track, shall we?

Remember my question to LT? Remember his answer?

Bottomline - no one has the right to be angered when, during an investigation, the veracity of a report is questioned. Want to do propper research? Then always raise the possibility that the alleged eyewitness is lying. Yes, it may be unconfortable for the alleged eyewitenss, but that's how things are. If the alleged eyewitness can't understand it, well, then this person is not used to investigations...

What about a third party geting upset by this? Well, if the individual has a minimum ammount of information on how investigations must be carried, actually there's no reason for it. Now if the person knows something about bigfootery, then this person is a drama queen and/or has an agenda/vendetta. Nothing more, nothing less.

[LONGTABBER PE]

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

It wasnt waving at us and the 113 was green and rusted LOL

The vehicle was detracked and had sunk some on the roadwheels ( which normally happens over the decades) so it was slightly lower than OEM.

It was dificult to get a "sharp" image due to the gen I stuff and also they were being passed around so nobody got a "continuous" look.

The target area ( around the vehicle) was level for the most part with mounds/depressions all over. ( rolling hillish)

Now when I say chest, I'm talking about the upper chest- not from the abdomen. ( that wouldnt have been large- that would have been gargantuan)

What I cannot judge is the relationship to the vehicle in distance.

When I got my best view- it was at the front and walking away. ( I just heard the comments prior) It didnt shrink in relation to the vehicle.

[Drewbot]

The vehicle was detracked and had sunk some on the roadwheels ( which normally happens over the decades) so it was slightly lower than OEM.


So if the top of the hull was say 5'6" after sinking in the mud, then he could have been 6'6 in combat boots and still stood a foot over the top of the hull.

[LONGTABBER PE]

So if the top of the hull was say 5'6" after sinking in the mud, then he could have been 6'6 in combat boots and still stood a foot over the top of the hull.

That would be on the extreme low side- if I were to estimate, I would say in the mid 7's

[LONGTABBER PE]

Uhm...

Ltes try to get back on track, shall we?

Remember my question to LT? Remember his answer?

Bottomline - no one has the right to be angered when, during an investigation, the veracity of a report is questioned. Want to do propper research? Then always raise the possibility that the alleged eyewitness is lying. Yes, it may be unconfortable for the alleged eyewitenss, but that's how things are. If the alleged eyewitness can't understand it, well, then this person is not used to investigations...

What about a third party geting upset by this? Well, if the individual has a minimum ammount of information on how investigations must be carried, actually there's no reason for it. Now if the person knows something about bigfootery, then this person is a drama queen and/or has an agenda/vendetta. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not exactly.

There are many reasons a report and its veracity/accuracy are questioned. Lying ( reason matters not) is only 1 of them. Others include error ( which can be where a witness believes they are right but factually incorrect) and another one thats really difficult to deal with that is a person telling it "their" way versus "the" way. ( sometimes that works well, other times it doesnt)

Then some people report thru their "opinions" and "prejudices" and slant a story.

In the perfect world, unless a person is deliberately caught in a case where the physical evidence contradicts a story or the story contradicts itself- put the accusation of "lying" in delicate terms.

Dont avoid it by any means- but manage it

[Correa Neto]

Sure, misidentifications, false memories and even real bigfeet -despite how unliklely it would be- must be taken as possibilities.

However, "its a lie" is an option which can not be, at least initially dismissed... Especially when it comes to subjects such as bigfoot (remember its a magnet to crackpots and similar creatures).

Saying -or considering- "this can be a fabrication" is not, I believe, so offensive. OK, sometimes it would be better to keep it private. But honestly, alleged eyewitnesses and footers (not using it in any negative meaning) in general must understand that this option must be taken in to account.

Once again, geting upset because someone at a www forum said a certain alleged bigfoot eyewitness might be lying is an over reaction.

[catcuz]

For the record, I abstained as well and having nothing to hide about it, the main reason being, it seems the whole situation is over the Munn's report upon which I have no major opinion. Thus I abstained.


I however did not abstain.

[kitakaze]

I however did not abstain.

Of course you didn't. You were itching to have me gone. I challenge you to find a single post of mine from your board that was insulting and incivil to a SFB member other than where I told Lyndon I thought of him as an internet thug when he was explicitly breaking your rule #3.

Go for it. I double dog dare you.

[RayG]

Note to self: Never pi$$ off Kit. :D

RayG

[kitakaze]

They were not disrupting the thread like you were. I should have said disrupting and not commenting. Strone only said he will make up his own mind and did not mention hoaxing.

Ah yes, I see how pointing out that Freeman's cast collection would have represented at least 26 individual Bigfoots and the disparity impossible for one species would be considered "disprupting". :rolleyes:

And I find it hilarious that you would quote and use Creek Freak to defend yourself, especially since you attack him constantly for being a hoaxer. So I guess that we can say that YOU support a hoaxer too right Kit? Hypocrite. So that leaves Henry and he only mentioned it, he did not disrupt the thread.

Showing that Creek was discussing Freeman hoaxing before I was in no way whatsoever equates support or tolerance for his hoaxed Bigfoot picture. Logic much? :mgduh

No I mean an administrator from the largest Bigfoot forum noticed you acting like a troll as you normally do.

And acting like a troll, scoftic will get you banned, and it did.


Searchforbigfoot - where informed and civil skeptic = troll and the word "scoftic" is still cool and witty. Say, what type of sweatpants and sneakers does your cult wear?

It is all about opinion and yours is no more relevent then anyones. including mine, silly boy.

Actually, no. When you claim no one in your Bigfooter club tolerates hoaxers and your president argues for the veracity of a hoaxer's cast... doh!... they tolerate hoaxers. Logic isn't as easy as it looks, I guess.

Neither do most of the members there.

Yes, I suspect the only people that were shaking there heads at seeing me get tossed against the protocol of your own rules for expressing skepticism in a civil and on-topic manner were people who care about actual civil debate and critical thinking like HarryH.

Of course all those people who like to use the word "scoftic", think a 23 square mile recreational park in Eastern Ohio covered in Bigfooters and hoaxers is a great place for a Bigfoot expedition, and fawn over the ridiculous collection of an admitted hoaxer showing at least 26 individual Bigfoots are naturally glad to see me thrown out. That's how it goes when you play Woods & Wildmen.;)

You are confusing ignore for disregard.

:eye-poppi

...

:dl:

You know, John, I spend most of my time speaking Japanese and can't count the number of times I've forgotten an English word for something I was trying to say and yet you don't seem to have the same grasp on our mother tongue as I do...

TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To pay no attention or heed to; ignore. disregarder, disregardful, disregarded, disregarding, disregards

Yes, John. You are in fact the one being a hypocrite when you complain about not discussing sightings while ignoring/disregarding ;) essential questions central to your claim of seeing Bigfoot.

Oops for you. You may not realize this but you are in fact now getting owned in debate.

[WGBH]

Yeah, I don't know how I can live with myself....
:rolleyes:

That response was pretty lame even for you, and it took you that long to copy it, write a response and return hours later?

Also, what question am I ignoring? No one has asked me a question in about a week. You mean this statement below you have typed about 5 times already?

Kit asks a question to himself:

Once again I ask, given that repetition and replication of the unique circumstances involved is not necessary to rule out the possibility of sleep-related occurrence or distorted memory for your claim that 27 years ago in a deers tand up a tree along the Pasquotank River, NC in the early morning after being disoriented and feeling very groggy that you saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape, why is it impossible that you did not see what you thought you saw?

Kit answers himself:

Vivid sleep-related hallucinations occur as do vivid but distorted memories. This is known, tested, and proven by science. What is not known, tested, and proven by science is that the largest land mammal in North America is a bipedal gargantuan ape that exists in places such as small swathes of woods like where the Pasquotank is completely surrounded by farmland and cities.

This is not a question Kit, This is a scoftic statement. Why should I respond to a statement? You answered your OWN question.


BTW There are more then a few different definitions for words Kit.
Main Entry:
1dis·re·gard Listen to the pronunciation of 1disregard
Pronunciation:
\ˌdis-ri-ˈgärd\
Function:
transitive verb

: to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice

[kitakaze]

What I know is that it ended up being a major league catfight for many people myself included and I wasted mucho energy trying to stay out of it last year so thats about my input on it.

That tells me that I'm not the first one to object to ripping off an artist's work without credit. That's good to hear. It also tells me that ABS people knew they were ripping off Robert Bateman since last year and still didn't remove the swipe. That's not good to hear.

Actually Chris is one of four board members for the Group, as am I just to clarify but i appreciate you not dragging Nesra into this subject, it really has nothing to do with them. Matters with Anderholm are considered ancient history also, fwiw.

Thanks for the clarification. I think Chris handled himself very well when he was on Monster Quest. It's not easy to not look a little kooky when you're talking about Bigfoot in New York. Though ex-NESRA Steve Kulls was not able to do that, Chris Bartow was (3:30)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1gby_XRVZA

[kitakaze]

Yeah, I don't know how I can live with myself....
:rolleyes:

By ignoring/disregarding.;)

*tee hee*

[desertgal]

That tells me that I'm not the first one to object to ripping off an artist's work without credit. That's good to hear. It also tells me that ABS people knew they were ripping off Robert Bateman since last year and still didn't remove the swipe. That's not good to hear.


You mean, you got a straight answer on the issue? Wow. I bow down in reverence.

[WGBH]

That tells me that I'm not the first one to object to ripping off an artist's work without credit. That's good to hear. It also tells me that ABS people knew they were ripping off Robert Bateman since last year and still didn't remove the swipe. That's not good to hear.


You wanna check the link to that web site again skippy?

[kitakaze]

27 years in 1982 and first reported 11 years ago in 1998 at a time when by his own admission he was an alcoholic John claims to have seen a 10 x 6 ft monster wood ape in a small corridor of woods along the Pasquotank River in North Carolina not far from Elizabeth City. He says he had his alleged sighting after being disoriented and very groggy and yet refuses to consider that he experienced a sleep-related hallucination, dream, or distorted memory based on the completely invalid reasoning that the unique experience and circumstances have not repeated themselves. John is heavily involved in Bigfootery and refuses to let go of what is almost certainly a delusion or false memory or seriously consider the known and proven alternatives.

That's too bad but at least John is seeking professional help for sleep problems.

[kitakaze]

You wanna check the link to that web site again skippy?

Hey, that's excellent. The site ripping off Robert Bateman's art has been removed.

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/

Bye bye, art theft. It's too bad it took my making an issue of it on the JREF even after apparently it was the source of conflict since last year. I guess someone in the ABS thought it was acceptable to steal from an artist for the sake of their Bigfooter club.

I am a force for change and better ethics in Bigfootery. I am wallowing in self-satisfaction and a sense of acheivement;)

*tee hee*

BTW, I give you the respect of referring to you by your name. Please don't use the tired and blase tradition of showing disrespect by referring to me as "Skippy". If you want to stick it to me, just dismantle my arguments (if you can).

[WGBH]

27 years in 1982 and first reported 11 years ago in 1998 at a time when by his own admission he was an alcoholic John claims to have seen a 10 x 6 ft monster wood ape in a small corridor of woods along the Pasquotank River in North Carolina not far from Elizabeth City. He says he had his alleged sighting after being disoriented and very groggy and yet refuses to consider that he experienced a sleep-related hallucination, dream, or distorted memory based on the completely invalid reasoning that the unique experience and circumstances have not repeated themselves. John is heavily involved in Bigfootery and refuses to let go of what is almost certainly a delusion or false memory or seriously consider the known and proven alternatives.

That's too bad but at least John is seeking professional help for sleep problems.

That was awesome! Can I use it as the introduction to my Biography?

[Vortigern99]

disoriented and very groggy

Don't forget nauseated. John reports having been sick to his stomach only minutes before the sighting.

[WGBH]

Hey, that's excellent. The site ripping off Robert Bateman's art has been removed.

http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/

Bye bye, art theft. It's too bad it took my making an issue of it on the JREF even after apparently it was the source of conflict since last year. I guess someone in the ABS thought it was acceptable to steal from an artist for the sake of their Bigfooter club.

I am a force for change and better ethics in Bigfootery. I am wallowing in self-satisfaction and a sense of acheivement;)

*tee hee*

Well, it actually took you cluelessly going to a wrong, website that is no longer used. Then pointing it out to people who did not know about it to bring about the change. But I will give you props for bringing it to our attention. Yippy for skippy!

BTW, I give you the respect of referring to you by your name. Please don't use the tired and blase tradition of showing disrespect by referring to me as "Skippy". If you want to stick it to me, just dismantle my arguments (if you can).

OK Skippy, but I don't think Kitakaze is your name. It's just your handle when you are a internet troll.

[Tricky]

Folks, this thread is a gallimaufry* of strange and off-topic stuff. This thread has drifted like a Nerf ball in a hurricane. I don't have the energy or the enthusiasm to try to clean it up, but in order to keep it from either moderated status or the dreaded "Abandon All Hope", please try to stop bickering, stop personal attacks, stop off topic discussions (like who voted who should be banned) and attempt to find something that is vaguely relevant to the topic that you can discuss pleasantly. We'll allow some leeway as to topic, but not as to bickering.

Thanks, and enjoy your trip.


* - No I'm not telling you. Look it up.

[kitakaze]

Per your edit...

Yeah, I don't know how I can live with myself....
:rolleyes:

That response was pretty lame even for you, and it took you that long to copy it, write a response and return hours later?

This may come as a certain sort of shock to you but sunshine, a beautiful park, and tennis take priority over Bigfoot enthusiasts for me.

Also, what question am I ignoring? No one has asked me a question in about a week. You mean this statement below you have typed about 5 times already?

:boggled:

Yes, I do mean that question that was asked repeatedly and recently to you.

Kit asks a question to himself:

Once again I ask, given that repetition and replication of the unique circumstances involved is not necessary to rule out the possibility of sleep-related occurrence or distorted memory for your claim that 27 years ago in a deers tand up a tree along the Pasquotank River, NC in the early morning after being disoriented and feeling very groggy that you saw a 9 x 6 ft monster wood ape, why is it impossible that you did not see what you thought you saw?

Kit answers himself:

Vivid sleep-related hallucinations occur as do vivid but distorted memories. This is known, tested, and proven by science. What is not known, tested, and proven by science is that the largest land mammal in North America is a bipedal gargantuan ape that exists in places such as small swathes of woods like where the Pasquotank is completely surrounded by farmland and cities.

This is not a question Kit, This is a scoftic statement. Why should I respond to a statement? You answered your OWN question.

I think you're one of the very few people here for whom "scoftic" has any valid and functional meaning and application. For the rest of us it it basically equates saying "meany".

But please, if you can, explain to me in some coherent manner why my acknowledging that sleep-related hallucinations and distorted memories are proven by science while monster wood apes in small pockets of woodland in North Carolina are not is answering my own question.

Why should you answer it? Oh, I don't know. It's only just about the most central and relevant question concerning your Bigfoot claim. But hey, there is no rule that you actually have to employ logic on this forum. You're more than welcome to just keep feigning its use.


BTW There are more then a few different definitions for words Kit.
Main Entry:
1dis·re·gard Listen to the pronunciation of 1disregard
Pronunciation:
\ˌdis-ri-ˈgärd\
Function:
transitive verb

: to pay no attention to : treat as unworthy of regard or notice

Uuuuum... yeah, dude. IOW literally and exactly what "ignore" means.

*Miss Swan* Yeah, OK. You speak a English? *Miss Swan*

[kitakaze]

Folks, this thread is a gallimaufry* of strange and off-topic stuff. This thread has drifted like a Nerf ball in a hurricane. I don't have the energy or the enthusiasm to try to clean it up, but in order to keep it from either moderated status or the dreaded "Abandon All Hope", please try to stop bickering, stop personal attacks, stop off topic discussions (like who voted who should be banned) and attempt to find something that is vaguely relevant to the topic that you can discuss pleasantly. We'll allow some leeway as to topic, but not as to bickering.

Thanks, and enjoy your trip.


* - No I'm not telling you. Look it up.

Almost totally me. Sorry. I have my OT all mixed up with my relevant stuff. I really should have an ABS thread, anyway.

Gallimaufry... hmmm. Is that more like a hodgepodge or a potpourri?

[kitakaze]

27 years in 1982 and first reported 11 years ago in 1998 at a time when by his own admission he was an alcoholic John claims to have seen a 10 x 6 ft monster wood ape in a small corridor of woods along the Pasquotank River in North Carolina not far from Elizabeth City. He says he had his alleged sighting after being disoriented and very groggy and yet refuses to consider that he experienced a sleep-related hallucination, dream, or distorted memory based on the completely invalid reasoning that the unique experience and circumstances have not repeated themselves. John is heavily involved in Bigfootery and refuses to let go of what is almost certainly a delusion or false memory or seriously consider the known and proven alternatives.

That's too bad but at least John is seeking professional help for sleep problems.That was awesome! Can I use it as the introduction to my Biography?

Be my guest. It's more accurate, right?

He joined Sasquatch Watch of Virginia in September 2008. In his spare time he enjoys writing, rock music, soccer and of course cryptozoology.

http://americanbigfootsociety.com/

I think it's only fair to tell you that for rational thinking people you look for all the world like you clapped your mind shut to the possibility of anything other than having seen a Bigfoot. It's like you just refuse to have it any other way or really try and think rationally. Why is that? I would genuinely like to know why.

[makaya325]

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

Ehh..wrong! :rolleyes:

You have the Tiger, the african elephant, The rhino, The hippo, the Moose, The grizzly/kodiak/polar bears, Buffalo, Cows, Horses...shall i go on?


probably bigger than a grizzly bear,

Do you even know how large Grizzly's can get? They stand over 10ft tall and weigh more than 1000 pounds...on AVERAGE.

[makaya325]

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 thishttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_197054a4a1f2cbbe95.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16807)

I hope you realize that the M113 armored vehicle stands 2.5 meters tall with the rails. Long never said it easily cleared the Height, only that it approached it.

[makaya325]

That would be on the extreme low side- if I were to estimate, I would say in the mid 7's

I am assuming that if you can estimate its height, you can tell what kind of physique it featured, and perhaps an estimated weight?

[William Parcher]

Do you even know how large Grizzly's can get? They stand over 10ft tall and weigh more than 1000 pounds...on AVERAGE.

Why did you use the term 'on average' for those numbers?

[WGBH]

I think it's only fair to tell you that for rational thinking people you look for all the world like you clapped your mind shut to the possibility of anything other than having seen a Bigfoot. It's like you just refuse to have it any other way or really try and think rationally. Why is that? I would genuinely like to know why.

My mind is closed about my sighting. It happened, I'm sorry if my attitude bothers you. I am not doing it to antagonize you. It's not like I am trying to force my opinion on anyone right?

Hmm...the reason why? Because hiding it and not talking about it and ignoring it for years, did me no good.

[kitakaze]

My mind is closed about my sighting. It happened, I'm sorry if my attitude bothers you. I am not doing it to antagonize you. It's not like I am trying to force my opinion on anyone right?

Hmm...the reason why? Because hiding it and not talking about it and ignoring it for years, did me no good.

The part I bolded really says it all. We mixed it up pretty good today but don't think that means I've begun to dislike you. It's just I don't think your being totally rational and applying critical thought to your experience. You were disoriented, very groggy, and as Vort reminded me, nauseous right before your alleged sighting. It was 27 years ago and you didn't report it until 16 years later on the tail end of a bout of alcoholism.

I just want to know why it's impossible that you didn't actually see what you think you saw. After that I will approach the situation from the hypothetical stance that you saw what you think you saw.

From there my first question will be what medium to large-sized rare North American mammal, other than Bigfoot, would you like to see in the wild.

[ElectricVoodoo]

Do you even know how large Grizzly's can get? They stand over 10ft tall and weigh more than 1000 pounds...on AVERAGE.

Grizzly bears are a subspecies of brown bears. On AVERAGE they top out about 2 feet shorter and 200 pounds lighter than what you indicated. At 10 feet tall on their hind legs and 1000 lbs. dry that specimen would be considered large for a griz.

Furthermore, there are variations of brown bears that differ geographically. With that said their AVERAGES vary as much as their habitata. Kodiak and coastal brownies are the largest in the brown bear family.

[ElectricVoodoo]

I am assuming that if you can estimate its height, you can tell what kind of physique it featured, and perhaps an estimated weight?

I can't and won't speak for Longtabber, but have you ever had experience with Gen 1 NV before? It would be difficult to see a definitive outline in contrast with a M113 (especially one painted OD) at any notable distance.

[WGBH]

The part I bolded really says it all. We mixed it up pretty good today but don't think that means I've begun to dislike you. It's just I don't think your being totally rational and applying critical thought to your experience. You were disoriented, very groggy, and as Vort reminded me, nauseous right before your alleged sighting. It was 27 years ago and you didn't report it until 16 years later on the tail end of a bout of alcoholism.

I just want to know why it's impossible that you didn't actually see what you think you saw. After that I will approach the situation from the hypothetical stance that you saw what you think you saw.

From there my first question will be what medium to large-sized rare North American mammal, other than Bigfoot, would you like to see in the wild.

Kit, nothing is impossible, just unlikely. I don't need a hypothetical, but feel free if you want. If we are going to do that, I would prefer that we talk about ideas on research. Such as IF this animal is real, what techniques the people here would use to search for it. Even if we need to start a new thread. I want new ideas.

Are you asking why I waited 16 years to report it? Because I had no idea who to report it to until the internet age.

I was lucky to see a Bald Eagle in flight in Yakima. I would like to see more.

[kitakaze]

Kit, nothing is impossible, just unlikely.

Sure thing. But you seeing a 10 x 6 ft Bigfoot in that little corridor of woods along the Pasquotank isn't any better than me claiming to see a Reptoid in the park while playing tennis today.


I don't need a hypothetical, but feel free if you want. If we are going to do that, I would prefer that we talk about ideas on research. Such as IF this animal is real, what techniques the people here would use to search for it. Even if we need to start a new thread. I want new ideas.

Are you asking why I waited 16 years to report it? Because I had no idea who to report it to until the internet age.

I am helping you. I don't think that all the Bigfoot enthusiasts across North America out there searching for Bigfoot don't find it because it's not there. That's exactly what the evidence shows.

John, I gave you the number for wildlife and environmental experts for the Great Dismal Swamp. How likely is it that you'll actually contact these people. This is a black and white zoological issue and those people need to know that the biggest primate on Earth eats mulberry leaves in their area. This is huge. Like, the biggest thing ever. Forget the yeehaws farting around in Salt Fork, these people have got to be told and I think your just the spokesperson to do it. What do you say? Will your fingers do the walking and your mouth do the talking?

I was lucky to see a Bald Eagle in flight in Yakima. I would like to see more.

Those things are like chickens where I am.

[WGBH]

Sure thing. But you seeing a 10 x 6 ft Bigfoot in that little corridor of woods along the Pasquotank isn't any better than me claiming to see a Reptoid in the park while playing tennis today.

The Bigfoot I saw keeps getting larger and larger.

I am helping you. I don't think that all the Bigfoot enthusiasts across North America out there searching for Bigfoot don't find it because it's not there. That's exactly what the evidence shows.

John, I gave you the number for wildlife and environmental experts for the Great Dismal Swamp. How likely is it that you'll actually contact these people. This is a black and white zoological issue and those people need to know that the biggest primate on Earth eats mulberry leaves in their area. This is huge. Like, the biggest thing ever. Forget the yeehaws farting around in Salt Fork, these people have got to be told and I think your just the spokesperson to do it. What do you say? Will your fingers do the walking and your mouth do the talking?

Kit thanks for the phone number, but who said I did not already have that phone number. I have called the Dismal park before to ask about park rules because my local group wanted to inquire about a possible outing. During the summer the swamp can be a dangerous place because of the abundance of bears, water moccasins and copper heads. They even close the park completely at night. I feel it is better to speak about such things to rangers in person.

During another investigation my group has spoken to the rangers about Bigfoot at another park here in Virginia called Prince William Forrest. The ranger even produced log books and let us thumb through them to read the Bigfoot reports they receive. Surprised that they log the reports Kit?

Please remember that even though I am the world's greatest Bigfoot hunter :D I still need to work to feed my family. My job has been extremely busy and I am working long hours at this time. What little spare time I have has been spent on a investigation in progress for my local "Bigfoot enthusiast group":D or taking care of my own personal issues.


Those things are like chickens where I am.

Must be nice.

[mikeyx]

Thanks for the clarification. I think Chris handled himself very well when he was on Monster Quest. It's not easy to not look a little kooky when you're talking about Bigfoot in New York. Though ex-NESRA Steve Kulls was not able to do that, Chris Bartow was (3:30)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1gby_XRVZA

regarding Monsterquest: bear in mind they butchered the actual timeline of events, and whilest we were there to do what we do, they had the agenda of doing a historical overview of the Adirondak area rather than focus on us, also I would agree that Kulls hogged the camera.

as far as BF in New York there actually is a history of alledged activity in the area going back a few hundred years but thats a whole different can of worms.

[kitakaze]

The Bigfoot I saw keeps getting larger and larger.

No, it doesn't. In your very own words:

I can still see this thing clearly in my head. It is probably burned into my memory. I said 9 because I am very sure about what I saw. I would have said 10 but then the skeptic world would have chased me out of here with torches and pitch forks.

See, I'm paying attention here, John.

Kit thanks for the phone number, but who said I did not already have that phone number.

I gave you two. Do you remember what they were?

I have called the Dismal park before to ask about park rules because my local group wanted to inquire about a possible outing. During the summer the swamp can be a dangerous place because of the abundance of bears, water moccasins and copper heads. They even close the park completely at night. I feel it is better to speak about such things to rangers in person.


No, no. I mean the experts who study the Great Dismal Swamp's ecosystem need to know about the monster wood apes in the area. Did you tell these people you've seen a huge primate in their area? When you called the park did you talk about Bigfoot?

During another investigation my group has spoken to the rangers about Bigfoot at another park here in Virginia called Prince William Forrest. The ranger even produced log books and let us thumb through them to read the Bigfoot reports they receive. Surprised that they log the reports Kit?

Why would I be surprised? If people say they see Bigfoots in their park, they should obviously log it. How many reports did they log?

Please remember that even though I am the world's greatest Bigfoot hunter I still need to work to feed my family. My job has been extremely busy and I am working long hours at this time. What little spare time I have has been spent on a investigation in progress for my local "Bigfoot enthusiast group" or taking care of my own personal issues.

Yeaaah, I'll stop calling Bigfoot enthusiasts by that term when they stop using it themselves and when it's not valid and correct.

You really need to talk to some experts, not just rangers at parks, but people who study the ecosystem and wildlife of the area where you claim a sighting. They need to know about this. Who do you think you should talk to first?

[Drewbot]

DUDE! If I went into a suburban wooded park, and saw a 9' tall, x 6' wide creature, of ANY FORM whatsoever, and I REALLY REALLY THOUGHT IT WAS REAL, I would be calling newspapers, standing out front warning families, ANYTHING I could to keep people from letting their children be placed in jeopardy because of the Beast. Especially if it was a freaking Gorilla-Man-Beast. Could you imagine the guilt if one of those children got eaten by the beast, and you had done NOTHING to warn those families??? Oh Snap, I'd be so sad.

[Drewbot]

DUDE! If I went into a suburban wooded park, and saw a 9' tall, x 6' wide creature, of ANY FORM whatsoever, and I REALLY REALLY THOUGHT IT WAS REAL, I would be calling newspapers, standing out front warning families, ANYTHING I could to keep people from letting their children be placed in jeopardy because of the Beast. Especially if it was a freaking Gorilla-Man-Beast. Could you imagine the guilt if one of those children got eaten by the beast, and you had done NOTHING to warn those families??? Oh Snap, I'd be so sad.



JOHN- This is why I think you KNOW you didn't see a bigfoot, because listening to your nature over the last couple years, I know you'd be out there trying to keep little kids from being eaten, and I haven't seen one thing where you said you were manning the post out front of the park handing out DANGER _ GIANT GORILLA pamphlets to the families going into the park in their Taurus Wagons.

[LONGTABBER PE]

JOHN- This is why I think you KNOW you didn't see a bigfoot, because listening to your nature over the last couple years, I know you'd be out there trying to keep little kids from being eaten, and I haven't seen one thing where you said you were manning the post out front of the park handing out DANGER _ GIANT GORILLA pamphlets to the families going into the park in their Taurus Wagons.

hmmmm

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/261034a4b7aa70dd6c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16811)

[WGBH]

No, it doesn't. In your very own words:



See, I'm paying attention here, John.

Kit, uhmm that was a joke.

I gave you two. Do you remember what they were?

They are on the post here.


No, no. I mean the experts who study the Great Dismal Swamp's ecosystem need to know about the monster wood apes in the area. Did you tell these people you've seen a huge primate in their area? When you called the park did you talk about Bigfoot?

I know what you meant. No I did not say that and as I said, it is something I prefer to do in person. Why do you call them monsters? They are just animals.

Why would I be surprised? If people say they see Bigfoots in their park, they should obviously log it. How many reports did they log?

I will ask the people who were there for more information about the log books. I was not there. The group went there to inquire about a permit to hang game cameras in the park.

Yeaaah, I'll stop calling Bigfoot enthusiasts by that term when they stop using it themselves and when it's not valid and correct.

I don't care what silly name you use.

You really need to talk to some experts, not just rangers at parks, but people who study the ecosystem and wildlife of the area where you claim a sighting. They need to know about this. Who do you think you should talk to first?

I agree with you. I will try.

[WGBH]

DUDE! If I went into a suburban wooded park, and saw a 9' tall, x 6' wide creature, of ANY FORM whatsoever, and I REALLY REALLY THOUGHT IT WAS REAL, I would be calling newspapers, standing out front warning families, ANYTHING I could to keep people from letting their children be placed in jeopardy because of the Beast. Especially if it was a freaking Gorilla-Man-Beast. Could you imagine the guilt if one of those children got eaten by the beast, and you had done NOTHING to warn those families??? Oh Snap, I'd be so sad.

Suburban? Naw, more like very rural. I agree, if you find a Bigfoot body, get it in a truck and drive to the nearest news outlet and pull up right in front for photos and film.

[WGBH]

JOHN- This is why I think you KNOW you didn't see a bigfoot, because listening to your nature over the last couple years, I know you'd be out there trying to keep little kids from being eaten, and I haven't seen one thing where you said you were manning the post out front of the park handing out DANGER _ GIANT GORILLA pamphlets to the families going into the park in their Taurus Wagons.

LOL! Drew, if you really knew me you would know how much I can't stand being around children.:D Also my sighting was not IN the park, it was in the area.

[tsig]

I agree with you. I will try.

You seem remarkably lackadaisical about researching your sighting.

Would it somehow diminish you if you couldn't believe anymore?

[William Parcher]

John, there was one question I asked long ago that didn't get an answer. It was asked about when you went over to look for tracks where the Bigfoot was standing/feeding.


If instead you had found what appeared to be bear tracks, would it have caused you to have any doubts about what you saw (Bigfoot)?

[WGBH]

You seem remarkably lackadaisical about researching your sighting.

Would it somehow diminish you if you couldn't believe anymore?

I guess you have not been paying attention. I prefer to not do field work alone.
I can get panicky in the woods.

I am the only member of my organization in this area of southeastern VA. Everyone else is a 3 hour drive to the north or out west. You want to volunteer to go with me? OK, lets go.

No it would not diminish me, the sun would still rise in the morning.

[WGBH]

John, there was one question I asked long ago that didn't get an answer. It was asked about when you went over to look for tracks where the Bigfoot was standing/feeding.

Yes William. Of course I would rely on any trace evidence. If it was a bear, I could have lived with that. It was not.

[William Parcher]

Yes William. Of course I would rely on any trace evidence. If it was a bear, I could have lived with that. It was not.


You found no trace evidence at all to indicate it was a Bigfoot instead of a bear, right?

[WGBH]

You found no trace evidence at all to indicate it was a Bigfoot instead of a bear, right?

No, I noticed no trace evidence at all. But, I was a boy and could have overlooked something of course.

[William Parcher]

No, I noticed no trace evidence at all.

Again, you said you weren't paying attention to the stripped branches, right?


But, I was a boy and could have overlooked something of course.

You could have overlooked bear tracks?

Do you recall if the ground there covered with pine needles?

[WGBH]

Again, you said you weren't paying attention to the stripped branches, right?




You could have overlooked bear tracks?

Do you recall if the ground there covered with pine needles?

Yes, I could have overlooked tracks. Yes the ground was covered with pine needles and leaves everywhere.

[kitakaze]

No, I noticed no trace evidence at all. But, I was a boy and could have overlooked something of course.

It's like it was never there.

[kitakaze]

So, John, if you could choose, what medium to large-sized North American mammal (not Bigfoot) would you like to see in the wild?

[kitakaze]

Recent PTSD thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145982

[makaya325]

Why did you use the term 'on average' for those numbers?

Because of two things:

1. researching Grizzly bear physiology and information, including diet, behavior, etc. Let me tell you this: I was at the ecology center nearby (Probably a mile or two north of a shopping outlet, which includes bob's, best buy, etc). My parents and I went to there, (It was part of my birthday present). We saw some pretty interesting animals, including the Endangered Bald eagle, which was discussed by one of the Officials as "Escaping and nearly landing in Traffic).

Anyway, i Saw a Black bear up close, WP. They are MONSTROUS, yet are way way smaller than Grizzlies!

Thats just my experience with these large beasts( I have seen some In california, both outside and on my reservation, Foraging for food. They were pain in the Asse's, and cost me about 3 dinners.)

[makaya325]

Grizzly bears are a subspecies of brown bears. On AVERAGE they top out about 2 feet shorter and 200 pounds lighter than what you indicated. At 10 feet tall on their hind legs and 1000 lbs. dry that specimen would be considered large for a griz.

Considering there are thousands of them, 10ft and 1000 lbs is not rare, and would occur at least once in every national park/Wildlife Center.

[WGBH]

Kit,

Yes, it was like it was never there. But it was.

I have done tons of reading on PTSD thanks, I will look it over.

I think seeing a wolf could be neat, as long as it didn't try to eat me.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Yeah, 2 or 3 have been killed in that exact area over the years so its not unheard of by any means. I suppose it depends on how one describes "remote" and the weight one puts on it. Its a fact we have a small bear population and once in a while one gets shot but I compare it to deer and the hunter ratio.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Cant see it due to bandwidth and internet restrictions in place here. Since I cant see it the description was "holes" similar to a walking path punched thru roughly 1-1.5 inches of ice. ( with a lot of broken sections) as well as hearing the punching while waiting for sun to rise

The picture showed how the overlaid tracks of a bear walking on all fours can create the appearance of a large-footed biped (similar tp what you're describing).

I meant that inclusively- not just that lone act. I dont rule a drunk out but for it to have been a drunk- he would have had to walk about 4 miles into the "back 40" of Lewis where the ranges were ( past range Control and the MP's and gates) ( no vehicles because headlights show up like lighthouses on NVG's and if we had seen that, we would have reported that to RC) and then amble several hundred meters down range. Just to amble for 20 odd minutes or so.

Good point. I have no idea how far a drunk could or would walk, so I'm not about to many any arguments for for against a drunken civilian. Could someone on base get tanked and wander around? I forget if you discussed this before, but I'd suspect there are rules in place to prevent that sort of thing. Although people tend to find a way around such regulations...

Possible but I would expect a much higher level of prank from an SF soldier. I would also expect some kind of punchline. (I've seen some good ones and if a prank- this wasnt one of them)

You can never really know for sure, due to all the terrible "pranks" out there. One great example of this is the "act like the cashier is your best friend during checkout" routine I occasionally dealt with during my retail days. I was under the impression that it was only considered a success if the cashier responded positively, but apparently my not reacting was just as satisfying to them.

[William Parcher]

Because of two things:

1. researching Grizzly bear physiology and information, including diet, behavior, etc. Let me tell you this: I was at the ecology center nearby (Probably a mile or two north of a shopping outlet, which includes bob's, best buy, etc). My parents and I went to there, (It was part of my birthday present). We saw some pretty interesting animals, including the Endangered Bald eagle, which was discussed by one of the Officials as "Escaping and nearly landing in Traffic).

Anyway, i Saw a Black bear up close, WP. They are MONSTROUS, yet are way way smaller than Grizzlies!

Thats just my experience with these large beasts( I have seen some In california, both outside and on my reservation, Foraging for food. They were pain in the Asse's, and cost me about 3 dinners.)

You forgot to put a #2 in there.

If you had actually researched grizzly bear height/weight you would not have said this...

Do you even know how large Grizzly's can get? They stand over 10ft tall and weigh more than 1000 pounds...on AVERAGE.

Their average standing height is not 10', and their average weight is not 1000lbs. Are you pulling numbers from your butt again?

[makaya325]

Their average standing height is not 10', and their average weight is not 1000lbs. Are you pulling numbers from your butt again?

My mistake. Yes, Grizzly male's weight 400 to 700 lbs on average, while the Kodiak bear weighs over 1000 lbs on AVERAGE. I guess i was talking about the Grizzly bear and accidently described a Kodiak bear. Regardless of that, They would both TOWER over a Sasquatch (If it exists), and sasquatch would not even crack the top 20 in terms of largest land mammals.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification.



The picture showed how the overlaid tracks of a bear walking on all fours can create the appearance of a large-footed biped (similar tp what you're describing).



Good point. I have no idea how far a drunk could or would walk, so I'm not about to many any arguments for for against a drunken civilian. Could someone on base get tanked and wander around? I forget if you discussed this before, but I'd suspect there are rules in place to prevent that sort of thing. Although people tend to find a way around such regulations...



You can never really know for sure, due to all the terrible "pranks" out there. One great example of this is the "act like the cashier is your best friend during checkout" routine I occasionally dealt with during my retail days. I was under the impression that it was only considered a success if the cashier responded positively, but apparently my not reacting was just as satisfying to them.


>>>The picture showed how the overlaid tracks of a bear walking on all fours can create the appearance of a large-footed biped (similar tp what you're describing).

ahh, OK- gotcha Let me define tracks here in this case

In this case, the "track" was not a distinguishable "track" in the sense of an outline/shape/toes etc. This wasnt snow or soft dirt. This was hard ice over water and land which itself was frozen except where it was running water.

These were just "punch thru's"- if they hadnt been heard being made before sun up and unfrozen water sloshing- they probably wouldnt have even been noticed

>>>Good point. I have no idea how far a drunk could or would walk, so I'm not about to many any arguments for for against a drunken civilian. Could someone on base get tanked and wander around? I forget if you discussed this before, but I'd suspect there are rules in place to prevent that sort of thing. Although people tend to find a way around such regulations...

well "today" a person would be fragged and locked up- 25 odd years ago before MADD, SADD, DADD and all the other ADD's- nobody really gave a damn.

If we were close to main post ( ie the NCO and EM clubs) I would think much more likely but even then that didnt explain the overall size very well. Its the distance and gating that really makes me doubt that scenario.

>>>You can never really know for sure, due to all the terrible "pranks" out there. One great example of this is the "act like the cashier is your best friend during checkout" routine I occasionally dealt with during my retail days. I was under the impression that it was only considered a success if the cashier responded positively, but apparently my not reacting was just as satisfying to them

True and it could be as simple as it didnt get the "desired effect" and was dropped. I dont discount that possibility.