Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[Medic212]

Hi, David, and thank you for coming here to share your experience with us. It is significant in that this is the first time on the JREF that we have a had a multiple witness claim for Bigfoot. Back in post (can't post links) of this thread I located the area of your sighting just past the East Arkansas Regional Unit prison and just before coming into Marianna.

To be honest, one of the first things I thought is that this is a footer or a couple of footers creating a story for us, but Michelle's use of the JREF forums contradicts that. I told Michelle that I thought it was very strange that she would come onto the forum and post specifically that she doesn't think Bigfoots often use roads in the Bigfoot roadkill thread, and yet sit on the massive whopper that she and her husband actually saw a Bigfoot using a road. I found one Bigfoot report with the BFRO for Lee County, which is from the 60's...

link

Arkansas has about 70 reports with the BFRO, which is not too shabby. I really don't know what to make of your story yet. I believe that you saw something, but I don't think it actually was Bigfoot. Maybe a person in a ghillie suit, maybe a hoax, I don't know. The reason why I doubt it actually was Bigfoot is because with that behaviour, and how often Bigfoot is reported by roads, we should absolutely have a type specimen by now.

To whom did you talk to about the event after it occured?

Here is a stock link with extended cab. About how much higher than the roof of your truck would you say the thing you saw?

Oh, and welcome to the JREF.

Thanks for the welcome.

I can certainly see where your opinion about a specimen would come into play. I think Michelle has already answered why she didn't share our experience. She felt foolish. End of discussion, I ask that you please try to have some respect on that issue, though I understand your concern about it as a skeptic. She had mentioned to me several times about posting our experience, and about that I was at first skeptical. I gave her first my permission to post about what happened and then later encouraged her to do so. That may strike some chords and that's fine. And to go back a bit about the implication that I would somehow be a puppet to the stronger personality in this relationship. Make no mistake I am the stronger personality, and the head of this household.

You asked how much taller what we saw was than the truck. We were driving a standard cab not an extended cab, I don't think there is a height difference if there is it isn't much I don't believe. However about the height it would be hard to judge very accurately as the thing we saw was running with a forward lean and sort of slumped. I would put it at 6 inches to a foot taller than the truck with that posture. Now I am 6' 1 and the truck we were in was probably a good 6 inches taller than me.

The first people we told were Michelle's sister when we saw her and her husband, sister in law didn't believe us but her husband said that his son had seen something similar several months before when he was learning to drive. Then we told my parents. My mother laughed it off but it scared the crap out of my dad.

Now please keep in mind that we don't hunt bigfoot, I think it would be fun, but we don't. I do believe that they exist...shoot me. I believe in ghosts. I believe in aliens. If that makes me a "woo" then I guess I'm a woo. I wish it was a cooler name though, that kinda sucks ya know?

I know that some people create hoaxes, and personally I think it's pathetic. I think it takes away from what could in fact be a fascinating thing if they do in fact exist. I also tend to think that they would more often than not stay away from roads and such, but I also don't think that means that they would never go near those places, no what I mean? I don't dismiss those possibilities as an explanation for what we saw either. I'm with michelle on that. Who knows what it was? Not me. Not for sure.

[WGBH]

OFF!
Your physique has nothing to do with anything like psychogenic non-epileptic seizures but I am in no position to say with certainty what you experienced, other than saying that any of the things I listed are far, far more likely than seeing Bigfoot, regardless of how convinced you are.

You know, I had to go back and give you props for this. This was very nicely said and I thank you.

[WGBH]

Medic212 and Sugarb,

Thank you for sharing your encounter with us. A friend of mine and fellow researcher from Texas has a very similar sighting in Louisiana. The only difference was that the figure was running on the passenger side of the car as they drove by it. It also never turned and never acknowledged him or his girlfriend at all.

[kitakaze]

Thanks for the welcome.

I can certainly see where your opinion about a specimen would come into play. I think Michelle has already answered why she didn't share our experience. She felt foolish. End of discussion, I ask that you please try to have some respect on that issue, though I understand your concern about it as a skeptic. She had mentioned to me several times about posting our experience, and about that I was at first skeptical. I gave her first my permission to post about what happened and then later encouraged her to do so. That may strike some chords and that's fine. And to go back a bit about the implication that I would somehow be a puppet to the stronger personality in this relationship. Make no mistake I am the stronger personality, and the head of this household.

Yeah, it's weird she didn't mention it but if she was embarrassed to discuss it, I could understand. Per your explanation, it seems she wanted to discuss it. I'm confused though, why would she need your permission to discuss an experience she had on an internet forum under an anonymous user name? I would think that is not something one adult needs to get from another adult, regardless of relationship.


You asked how much taller what we saw was than the truck. We were driving a standard cab not an extended cab, I don't think there is a height difference if there is it isn't much I don't believe. However about the height it would be hard to judge very accurately as the thing we saw was running with a forward lean and sort of slumped. I would put it at 6 inches to a foot taller than the truck with that posture. Now I am 6' 1 and the truck we were in was probably a good 6 inches taller than me.

What can you tell us about facial features and other fine details, such as hair lengths and textures?

The first people we told were Michelle's sister when we saw her and her husband, sister in law didn't believe us but her husband said that his son had seen something similar several months before when he was learning to drive. Then we told my parents. My mother laughed it off but it scared the crap out of my dad.

So your nephew has also seen a Bigfoot? What do you know about this?

Now please keep in mind that we don't hunt bigfoot, I think it would be fun, but we don't. I do believe that they exist...shoot me. I believe in ghosts. I believe in aliens. If that makes me a "woo" then I guess I'm a woo. I wish it was a cooler name though, that kinda sucks ya know?

Sorry, but yes, believing in ghosts and aliens makes one woo. You could have fortean addict if you like.

I know that some people create hoaxes, and personally I think it's pathetic. I think it takes away from what could in fact be a fascinating thing if they do in fact exist. I also tend to think that they would more often than not stay away from roads and such, but I also don't think that means that they would never go near those places, no what I mean? I don't dismiss those possibilities as an explanation for what we saw either. I'm with michelle on that. Who knows what it was? Not me. Not for sure.

What do you think about the possibility of it being a human wearing something that you misjudged the size of?

[kitakaze]

I will remember that about Deet. Thanks for the warning. For the record, I was not wearing it the day of the sighting.

Forgot about the silly WGBH fan page. Thanks for remembering it. Problem solved, great job!

I would think it would be hard to remember if you used bug spray from 27 years ago, but OK. So we should keep in mind that you might have come into contact with jimson weed.

The picture was nice. You had a porno mustache and everything.

[LuvGodzilla]

Jimson weed is known by other names such as: stinkweed, locoweed and was very popular with youth as a hallucinogenic drug which landed them in the hospital more times than not from accidental poisoning.

Wouldn't hurt to take a look John, perhaps you might recognize the plant or the flower as something you did touch or was around the deer stand.

I'd put up some links, but I'm sure your capable of finding what you need to know if your interested in looking for possible alternatives to your experience.

[GT/CS]

Jimson weed is known by other names such as: stinkweed, locoweed and was very popular with youth as a hallucinogenic drug which landed them in the hospital more times than not from accidental poisoning.

Wouldn't hurt to take a look John, perhaps you might recognize the plant or the flower as something you did touch or was around the deer stand.

I'd put up some links, but I'm sure your capable of finding what you need to know if your interested in looking for possible alternatives to your experience.

It doesn't matter. It's fairly obvious he won't accept any possibility other than he saw a bigfoot.

[Medic212]

Yeah, it's weird she didn't mention it but if she was embarrassed to discuss it, I could understand. Per your explanation, it seems she wanted to discuss it. I'm confused though, why would she need your permission to discuss an experience she had on an internet forum under an anonymous user name? I would think that is not something one adult needs to get from another adult, regardless of relationship.




What can you tell us about facial features and other fine details, such as hair lengths and textures?



So your nephew has also seen a Bigfoot? What do you know about this?



Sorry, but yes, believing in ghosts and aliens makes one woo. You could have fortean addict if you like.



What do you think about the possibility of it being a human wearing something that you misjudged the size of?


She required my permission because she knows that I am not a fan of the internet in general, one because I'm not a computer person, and two because I do not like online communities. She respects me as her husband. People are often not kind or thoughtful of peoples feelings and tend to very often pick what is said apart and that is something that can cause a lot of harm in many ways to many people. I am very very protective of my wife as I love her with all my heart and do not want that to happen to her. With that being my stance on online communities, she respects how I feel and why. We are a bit old fashioned, therefore our household isn't operated so streamline. She asked me how I felt about posting and I considered the consequences and gave my permission to do so freely.

As to being a fortean addict or "woo", I am not an addict of anything except my snuff and beer at any opportunity, though not that night before it's even implied. I don't have time to be engrossed in anything like that, I spend 24 hours at work and have 48 hours to be involved at home and with my family. I find that to be more important than any of this stuff.

As far as what my nephew saw, all I know is that when we described what we saw to my brother in law he said his son had seen something similar which he described as a "wild man"

I was unable to distinguish any specific facial features, by the time it was close enough for that to even be possible it passed so quickly there was no way to tell. The hair seemed to be about the length of a medium hair length dog, the best I could describe it would be like a mutt labrador. The hair appeared to be a dirty brown again like a dog thats had a good 'ol time in the mud.

I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the possibility of a man in a suit or a hoaxer or anything like that. It just doesn't feel probable to me. In my job there are a lot of situations where I have to go on instinct there just isn't time to sit and analyze a situation. You go with your gut and what the situation feels like. Nothing about what I saw seemed typical for lack of a better word. It seemed abnormal. There was something about what we saw that didn't feel like it was right. Unfortunately there isn't much more I can add than that. It happened to quickly. All I can say is that something wasn't "normal".

[Medic212]

Medic212 and Sugarb,

Thank you for sharing your encounter with us. A friend of mine and fellow researcher from Texas has a very similar sighting in Louisiana. The only difference was that the figure was running on the passenger side of the car as they drove by it. It also never turned and never acknowledged him or his girlfriend at all.

Thanks for the welcome. That was something that I found kinda strange. You would think that anything would at least acknowledge your existence. I would think that even a hoaxer would more than likely not be able to keep from turning to see if they had gotten a rise out of a passerby. Michelle said she will show me your story to read. I'll take a gander see. Thanks again

[WGBH]

I would think it would be hard to remember if you used bug spray from 27 years ago, but OK. So we should keep in mind that you might have come into contact with jimson weed.

The picture was nice. You had a porno mustache and everything.

How long does it take to take effect? I was in the tree stand about 3 to 4 hours before the episode started.

Did you catch my sexy Bruce Jenner Bowl hair cut too?:D

[sugarb]

Medic212 and Sugarb,

Thank you for sharing your encounter with us. A friend of mine and fellow researcher from Texas has a very similar sighting in Louisiana. The only difference was that the figure was running on the passenger side of the car as they drove by it. It also never turned and never acknowledged him or his girlfriend at all.

WGBH, hello. I stole my laptop back because while I don't have anything else to add to what I saw, earlier today as David was reading the threads, I was reminded of something that at first I asked him to post, but decided I should probably do it myself, so as to not confuse who is saying what.

This may interest everyone, and I do think it is a reasonable possibility (though I doubt very many would agree...to some it seems the only possibilities are hunters or bears or hallucinations, but I'll throw this in the mix anyway).

The WV thread is what brought this to mind, because as some of you may know, I'm originally a WV gal. Born and raised, still there often. I can stand and look at it across the river.

Anyway, the only relatives I have left close from my mom's family are my grandmother and my great aunt. They are both now in their 80's, though they still get around very well. First of all, neither of them "believe" in "woo" of any sort. Very practical women, and they raised me, so I like to think I take after them. At any rate, I admire them deeply.

They grew up out at East Lynn, in Wayne County, WV. A small cabin (I have a picture of it somewhere), and they raised their own food and my great grandmother (Mamaw) was on the school board and midwifed to support her kids (her husband died young).

As I said, both are in their 80's now, so going back to their childhood takes us back quite a few years. They grew up in poverty (and their ability to get out of that position never ceases to amaze me). Serious poverty, as did what few neighbors they had.

Anyway, how this relates to the topic...our family cemetery now (it's called the Osburne Cemetery, and is probably listed online somewhere I'm pretty sure), is across the road that now exists and up a hill from where their original little cabin stood. We drive out there often, and have to walk up the hill most of the time (the road is steep and washes out quite often...the men left in the family usually work on it a couple of times a year, before reunions).

My grandmother and great aunt talk a lot about their childhood, and one of the things they talk about every time we go out there together is the boy that was "wild". When we cross the creek, they'll point out where he would sometimes be, and when we get to the top of the hill, they'll show us places he could often be seen. They "knew" this boy (who grew into a man), or at least his family, which was poorer than they were, which must have meant they had nothing but crude shelter really. My mamaw took them food, as she did with most of their neighbors (a few miles apart). Those who had back then out there shared what they had, just to try to keep everyone alive.

Anyway, this family's children were severely malnourished (as many out there were at that time). They had one child that my grandmother and aunt describe as "not right". As this child got older, they say that he was, basically, "wild", and eventually everyone gave up trying to "catch" him and take him home, because he just left again and stayed up in the woods or down in the creek.

They talk about how filthy he was, how he was always naked, except for the times someone could "catch" him and take him home to be cleaned up...but it was never long before he was filthy and naked again. They said that he was harmless, but he couldn't talk for whatever reason (they say because he "wasn't right") and while he wouldn't run away as soon as he saw them, he would run away up the hill if they tried to get too close to him.

Now, I know this sounds bizarre, but...I've spent a lot of my life in rural areas. Big cities exist for me to find a way to drive through or around, except for when we're taking a relative to a specialist of some kind. I don't find it too far-fetched, if there was a well known "wild" boy (who eventually grew into a man, nobody knows what happened to him though. They assume he died somewhere in the woods or in one of the old mines...there's an old mine, in fact, that goes under our family cemetery) with a name and a family when they were growing up, it would still be possible today. Particularly in very poor, very rural areas.

To me, this would be a reasonable explanation (though I admit the sizes of reported creatures would kind of nullify that). As reasonable as hunters, and at certain times of the year, MORE reasonable than hunters. The filth they described...well, if it was as bad as they say, I could imagine how caked with grime this boy must have been, and who knows? It's certainly possible, at least in some cases, that there are humans who for whatever reason choose, or just end up, living more like animals and away from "society". As a matter of fact, up in our family cemetery we have found at different times nasty/filthy sleeping bags and other evidence of someone staying up there on and under the small shelter erected for church service. It's kind of weird...it doesn't make me nervous, because obviously a sleeping bag means at least it is a person, and we're never up there after dark anyway...but it's just...eh, strange.

Anyway, I just felt a want to share that. It will probably be dismissed as irrelevant, because most people probably couldn't conceive of anyone living that way...but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Given the sheer population in the US, a few hundred or thousand people like that wouldn't, to me, be surprising at all.

[WGBH]

Sugarb, That was very interesting.

There are many possible explanations for what you saw. I will certainly not be the one to tell you it was a Bigfoot. Many possibilities have been explored here in this thread. Only you and your husband can ever determine what it was. if that is even possible for you to do.

I can only speak for myself and what I saw. Just because I am sure about what I saw should have no bearing on you. As you can tell by this thread I could be lying, or crazy, or mistaken. But I am not.

[Bitter Monk]

[QUOTE=sugarb;5381398]
Now, I know this sounds bizarre, but...[/quote[

I don't think it sounds bizarre. I think it sounds very Lovecraftian.

[William Parcher]

You asked how much taller what we saw was than the truck. We were driving a standard cab not an extended cab, I don't think there is a height difference if there is it isn't much I don't believe. However about the height it would be hard to judge very accurately as the thing we saw was running with a forward lean and sort of slumped. I would put it at 6 inches to a foot taller than the truck with that posture. Now I am 6' 1 and the truck we were in was probably a good 6 inches taller than me.


So the truck roof is about 6'7". The hairy runner was 6-12" taller than that while in a leaned position. The creature was 7'1"-7'7" tall while leaned. This puts its upright standing height at something like 7'6"-8' tall.

Would it have been something like this Bigfoot shown here messing with a VW Beetle?


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/9f241d91.jpg

[wolftrax]

Sorry, but yes, believing in ghosts and aliens makes one woo. You could have fortean addict if you like.


Spending an inordinate amount of time daily talking about these subjects while professing not to believe in them also makes one woo.

[sugarb]

Sugarb, That was very interesting.

There are many possible explanations for what you saw. I will certainly not be the one to tell you it was a Bigfoot. Many possibilities have been explored here in this thread. Only you and your husband can ever determine what it was. if that is even possible for you to do.

I can only speak for myself and what I saw. Just because I am sure about what I saw should have no bearing on you. As you can tell by this thread I could be lying, or crazy, or mistaken. But I am not.

WGBH, hello. I have seen no reason to think you are being dishonest, or lying, or "crazy". You've been consistent, admitted the physical/emotional effects, and so the only option left is mistaken...and I'm not prepared to say that about you. You see, that is the main reason I find this interesting. I do not think that we are all seeing the same thing. I think there are, as you agree I think, *many* possibilities, and in my honest opinion, I think it is foolish to dismiss all of these sightings with a blanket of hoax or hallucination. I think that because...if strange sounding things or unproven things were always automatically dismissed, we'd still be living on a flat earth with a short life expectancy (but that's just how my mind works on things).

Historically, which seems to be dismissed also, there have been indications and reports, drawings or portrayals, of some pretty out there things. What many "skeptics" seem to do is throw a blanket over all of it, and as in this thread, say "you only say you saw that so you don't think you're crazy". But...I say they tend to dismiss anything they can't understand or that seems impossible or whatever so that *they* don't think *they* are crazy. That works both ways...and people are, historically speaking, afraid of things they don't understand. That explains so many social phenomena it isn't even funny. Racism, religious wars, horrific crimes against homosexuals...the list could go on for who knows how long.

And that's okay. I don't criticize that, because I'm a person also and I can understand that reaction. Remember, I immediately tried to dismiss what we saw! So that...*I wouldn't feel crazy*! I had and have a hard time talking about it...because I feel foolish and because I know others will think I'm crazy which makes me "feel" crazy! The easiest thing to do, really, is to keep one's mouth shut and just wonder about it privately. The cowardly thing to do, yes...I admit to being a coward about certain things...but certainly also the easiest.

But the truth is, it remains a curiosity to me. I, personally, hesitate to use the term "bigfoot", only because I try very hard to be as precise as I can, and as I said, I don't believe that everyone is seeing the same thing. Which makes it even MORE interesting, really, because I personally feel that if we could narrow down the differences in what we are seeing, I see that as being beneficial to better understanding what is going on. I don't think for a moment that I saw what you saw. What I saw could very easily have been any number of things, as we've been discussing here. I'm okay with that...it isn't a huge part of my life at all. As I said, just a curiosity. What you saw, though, was something else entirely and the sheer size alone rules out, in your case, a hunter, pretty much a hoaxer, or even a "wild" man. That makes your sighting much more interesting, and I would feel more comfortable, in your case, using the term "bigfoot".

My husband and I differ there a bit. Our thought processes and the way we communicate individually differ. He's comfortable with the word "bigfoot", whereas I'm really just not. He generalizes a lot (as most people do really) whereas I tend to compartmentalize individual things and examine them bit by bit. It's just a difference in how we think and speak. I used to think that was what people meant by how men and women communicate differently, but after coming here I realize it isn't a gender thing at all. So my mom's psychologist was right about me, I suppose. My life is "lonely" because of how I communicate. I am working on that...but at the same time, I think so many things get lost in this lack of communication, and the focus turns to such irrelevant things...or easily explainable things!

For instance, your physical reaction. I have refrained from commenting, but I will here, as an example of what I am saying. We're still primitive animals in parts of our minds. We have this fight or flight mechanism, yet because of how we've evolved, it at times causes us some problems. Smells? Well, I know that odors can throw me into a panic attack (which for me is very similar, though not identical, to the physical reaction you explained). If I smell, as an example, hot electricity...you know, that odor of a short in wiring or an electrical fire...it throws me into a panic attack. Why, I do not know. It isn't reasonable. It should make me want to do "flight", right? Get away from what could be damaging. But it doesn't. Instead I get shaky at first, then eventually that moves on to rigid and tremoring muscles, and on to more embarrassing aspects of these attacks that I sometimes cannot control. After a full blown panic attack, it would be hard to describe the state immediately following. It's like being dead while alive, I guess. Unable to respond, but the responses are in my mind, my body just won't let them out. Very odd feeling. Quite scary in its own right.

So there are many explanations for physical reactions, and they don't all involve "hallucinating" or "imagining/dreaming/whatever". Some involve, quite simply, the remaining primitive instincts we have and the disconnect between what those instincts would have normally had us do and the ways in which we are more modernly conditioned to think/believe/respond.

I do not think you are lying. I do think, though, that we are seeing different things. What we saw would be much easier to dismiss than what you did, and I think there are many sightings that could be just as easily dismissed. NOT because of "hallucinations", but because of other, simpler explanations. What we saw wasn't huge. That makes it easier to assume hunter or hoaxer, and that's peachy with me. Because it very well could have been either of those things. We didn't, however, mutually hallucinate. There was something there in that road.

And that is all I am really saying here. There was something, this is what it looked like, it scared me, the end. There's no more to elaborate on. Not nearly as interesting as your own, and I find the reaction to the odor exceptionally interesting. But not because I think you're crazy. I do not. I really do not, and I want you to know that.

[sugarb]

[QUOTE=sugarb;5381398]
Now, I know this sounds bizarre, but...[/quote[

I don't think it sounds bizarre. I think it sounds very Lovecraftian.

No, no...that would be fantasy, we're talking about reality. Unless you are saying that you do not think there are actual people who live in the wilderness for whatever reason. Which would be...an unusual thing to believe, I would think.

[Bitter Monk]

Oh I have no doubt that there are people who live in the woods. I'm just saying the people turned feral and subterranean passages beneath graveyards all resonate as strong Lovecraftian imagery.

[sugarb]

Oh I have no doubt that there are people who live in the woods. I'm just saying the people turned feral and subterranean passages beneath graveyards all resonate as strong Lovecraftian imagery.

LOL, okay, I see what you mean. I don't think he "turned feral", though. From what they described, it sounded to me more that he had some kind of mental illness or possibly a developmental problem. (They don't "buy into" mental illnesses. To them, mental illness is just as whacky as ghosts...)

Subterranean passages, lol. Well, out at East Lynn, the only people who had money back then were the people who owned the coal mines. There are many abandoned mines out that way, and it just so happens that there is an entrance to an old one on the far side of the cemetery, as you go down the hill. They didn't tear the mountains down then, they dug into them. Surprisingly, one of the mining companies out there is trying to get permits now to mine by the lake's dam. Only in WV, I guess. That would put a lot of property at a higher risk of flooding were a problem to arise...but WV is no stranger to floodings due to coal. It's really quite sad. I think, anyway.

[WGBH]

Spending an inordinate amount of time daily talking about these subjects while professing not to believe in them also makes one woo.

Great point

[GT/CS]

Spending an inordinate amount of time daily talking about these subjects while professing not to believe in them also makes one woo.

That makes no sense. Do you not understand what woo means?

[mikeyx]

That makes no sense. Do you not understand what woo means?

believing all things evil stem from one person would be a good example

[William Parcher]

believing all things evil stem from one person would be a good example

:confused:

[kitakaze]

That makes no sense. Do you not understand what woo means?believing all things evil stem from one person would be a good example

If I have my universal translator functioning correctly, I think that was a reference to the fallen angel Lucifer, Belezebub, the Daystar, Satan-Sataniel, Teh Devul.

IOW, Christianity = woo.

[wicked_ways]

If I have my universal translator functioning correctly, I think that was a reference to the fallen angel Lucifer, Belezebub, the Daystar, Satan-Sataniel, Teh Devul.

IOW, Christianity = woo.

Ah, kitakaze, i think you got it!

okay, who else has seen a bigfoot?

i have not, but have imagined many things out in the woods. :blush:

[mikeyx]

If I have my universal translator functioning correctly, I think that was a reference to the fallen angel Lucifer, Belezebub, the Daystar, Satan-Sataniel, Teh Devul.

IOW, Christianity = woo.

never mind, ya had to be there.....

[popscythe]

I've never seen Bigfoot, and I'm in Oregon, supposedly "bigfoot country."

My grandfather and his brother supposedly made (a?) plaster cast(s) of a large footprint that are now on display in some tourist trap museum. I realize mentioning this that I should get some more information. I was told the story probably fifteen years ago.

[kitakaze]

never mind, ya had to be there.....

Not Satan. OK, I have no idea then what that meant.

[wolftrax]

That makes no sense. Do you not understand what woo means?

Yes I know what the true definition of the word "Woo" means.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/woo

I personally like this:

2. (tr) to seek after zealously or hopefully



As well as this one:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/WOO
2 : to solicit or entreat especially with importunity


Now anyone walking through the woods on a regular basis looking for sasquatch is wooing the possibility of it, and is bound to find something that will fit what they are looking for.

But at the same time, anyone who claims not to believe in sasquatch yet writes everyday about it is also wooing a response from those they want to oppose. In fact, anyone who posts anything on a daily basis is zealously soliciting a response, wooing.

Now you're probably going to tell me some sort of made up definition for what you think it means based on seeing it thrown around as an insult to imply someone prone to appreciating fantasy more than reality, but even then someone who daily makes numerous posts on an internet forum, even arguing against paranormal subjects, is appreciating fantasy more than reality. This is an INTERNET FORUM, not real life, not the real world. It doesn't feed you, it doesn't shelter you, it doesn't give you warmth. It's communication abilities, though quick, are limited in that you aren't truly interacting with a human but their best, or worst, representative expressed with characters on a screen. The arguments in this subject are a complete waste of time, not because of their evidence contents but because they are personal stands in a realm where nobody is really standing. A fantasy.

[kitakaze]

Spending an inordinate amount of time daily talking about these subjects while professing not to believe in them also makes one woo.

Holy cow, do I disagree with that. That would be basically saying that I am a woo since I talk about Bigfoot stuff a lot but do not believe Bigfoot exists. I'm sure you didn't mean that as a personal dig. I certainly wouldn't call you a woo simply because you entertain the existence of Bigfoot. That would be unfair and dismissive. Tell me you believe in Bigfoot, aliens, and ghosts, and that will be a different story.

If I spend a lot of my time discussing psychic mediums, dowsing, Bigfoot, or whatever, it doesn't in any way make me a woo. It makes me interested in those topics. There's no irrational belief system in play. I'm surprised you said that. Was it something I said?

[Drewbot]

Ever wonder what 100 pages of photos of BIGFOOT, ALIEN, GHOSTS, and DINOSAUR believers looks like?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/believeit/

[William Parcher]

Wait, no. This is not real. Is it?

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/c89d52fa.jpg

[EHocking]

Wait, no. This is not real. Is it?

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/c89d52fa.jpg (http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/c89d52fa.jpg)
This - http://www.826boston.org/events/116 does make you wonder...

[William Parcher]

What a relief. It isn't real in a strict sense. It isn't really about Bigfoot. It isn't a Bigfoot research center, right?

[William Parcher]

No, it isn't about Bigfoot as a real creature. This list would have different names if it was about Bigfoot as we know Bigfoot. This is a non-profit center based on personal creativity. Bigfoot is used as an abstract cultural icon.

Greater Boston Bigfoot Research Institute Research Fellows

Amanda McCorkle, Graphic Design
Ali Reid
Megan Dickerson
Max Greenberg
Peter Sherer
Dave Bickham
Fern Ritchie
James Wirth
Jennie Coates
Wanna Camcam
Brad Simpson
Geoff Hackett
John Racek
Mike Dacey
Chris O'Connor
Artex
Other City Builders
Harvard Museum of Natural History
Boston Children's Museum
Loren Coleman

[William Parcher]

Boston.com explains a few things (http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2007/10/20/sci_fi_on_the_side/)


A peculiar building in Egleston Square will open soon under an equally peculiar name: the Greater Boston Bigfoot Research Institute.

Flanked by ordinary shops, its futuristic front already stands out on Washington Street where Roxbury meets Jamaica Plain. When its tall glass doors open, the sights inside will be stranger still. Sales clerks will hawk paranormal paraphernalia such as unicorn tears, and people dressed as scientists will busy themselves in apparent research at the city's center of cryptozoology, the study of creatures that may not be real.

But things aren't always as they seem.

The "cryptozoologists" will be volunteers in character; the specimens in jars of murky liquids, props. The entire sci-fi scene at 3035 Washington St. will be a facade for an imaginative, hands-on writing center called 826 Boston.

[William Parcher]

Yes I know what the true definition of the word "Woo" means.

Now anyone walking through the woods on a regular basis looking for sasquatch is wooing the possibility of it, and is bound to find something that will fit what they are looking for.

But at the same time, anyone who claims not to believe in sasquatch yet writes everyday about it is also wooing a response from those they want to oppose. In fact, anyone who posts anything on a daily basis is zealously soliciting a response, wooing.

Now you're probably going to tell me some sort of made up definition for what you think it means based on seeing it thrown around as an insult to imply someone prone to appreciating fantasy more than reality, but even then someone who daily makes numerous posts on an internet forum, even arguing against paranormal subjects, is appreciating fantasy more than reality. This is an INTERNET FORUM, not real life, not the real world. It doesn't feed you, it doesn't shelter you, it doesn't give you warmth. It's communication abilities, though quick, are limited in that you aren't truly interacting with a human but their best, or worst, representative expressed with characters on a screen. The arguments in this subject are a complete waste of time, not because of their evidence contents but because they are personal stands in a realm where nobody is really standing. A fantasy.


I'm not so sure that Randi's definition of woo can be found in those dictionaries. It apparently began as "woo woo" which is a satirical stereotype of the vocal expression used by someone who believes paranormal or fantastic things. Knights' scoftic can't be found in the dictionary either.

I disagree about the "nobody is really standing" in the Bigfoot argument. Skeptics remain standing and have never sat down. Bigfooters sit and wait for a discovery or head out and try to create one.

The two sides are not entirely opposite mirror images of each other. Bigfoot skeptics cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. Nobody can. Proof of non-existence cannot even be on their agenda. The Bigfooters can prove that Bigfoot exists. Almost anyone could regardless of their belief in Bigfoot. It's something that a person could do and it does appear to be high on the Bigfooter agenda.

[William Parcher]

Oh, here we go. Skeptic's Dictionary on woo-woo. (http://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html)


Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.

Here's a dictionary definition of woo-woo:

adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs.
When used by skeptics, woo-woo is a derogatory and dismissive term used to refer to beliefs one considers nonsense or to a person who holds such beliefs.

Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy....

[Medic212]

[QUOTE=William Parcher;5382845]So the truck roof is about 6'7". The hairy runner was 6-12" taller than that while in a leaned position. The creature was 7'1"-7'7" tall while leaned. This puts its upright standing height at something like 7'6"-8' tall.

Would it have been something like this Bigfoot shown here messing with a VW Beetle?


QUOTE]

Again I stress that it is hard to say for sure, but yes it appeared as though while running leaned forward that what we saw was approximately 6 inches to a foot taller than the truck. Obviously you would have to give or take some, but that's what it looked like to me.

oh, and cute picture, but again what we saw was shaped like a normal man not overly muscular. Take the physique of a large but not fat man, give him some hair all over and a very short neck. that is how what I saw appeared at least as best as I could see.

[William Parcher]

So basically a tall hairy neckless guy without any unusual musculature.

If a Bigfoot, without tools... he cannot break big trees, bring down deer, hurl big rocks, run super fast, etc.

[wolftrax]

Holy cow, do I disagree with that. That would be basically saying that I am a woo since I talk about Bigfoot stuff a lot but do not believe Bigfoot exists. I'm sure you didn't mean that as a personal dig.


Nobody likes a term that they see applies to them.


I certainly wouldn't call you a woo simply because you entertain the existence of Bigfoot. That would be unfair and dismissive. Tell me you believe in Bigfoot, aliens, and ghosts, and that will be a different story.


Does it really matter? All of these subjects are unproven, prone to hoaxes, and are mostly fan based vs. fact based.


I'm not so sure that Randi's definition of woo can be found in those dictionaries. It apparently began as "woo woo" which is a satirical stereotype of the vocal expression used by someone who believes paranormal or fantastic things. Knights' scoftic can't be found in the dictionary either.


So basically it's a word that was made up to serve as an insult to dissenting views and add security to a fantasy internet community.


I disagree about the "nobody is really standing" in the Bigfoot argument. Skeptics remain standing and have never sat down. Bigfooters sit and wait for a discovery or head out and try to create one.


You stand when you type on your computer?


The two sides are not entirely opposite mirror images of each other. Bigfoot skeptics cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist. Nobody can. Proof of non-existence cannot even be on their agenda. The Bigfooters can prove that Bigfoot exists. Almost anyone could regardless of their belief in Bigfoot. It's something that a person could do and it does appear to be high on the Bigfooter agenda.


If I spend a lot of my time discussing psychic mediums, dowsing, Bigfoot, or whatever, it doesn't in any way make me a woo. It makes me interested in those topics. There's no irrational belief system in play. I'm surprised you said that. Was it something I said?

Just like you have different people, you have different people who are skeptical of sasquatch and how they approach the subject. For example, my dad is skeptical of sasquatch, so much that he does scoff at the idea of it. He has the right to. He's spent the majority of his life in the mountains of Washington state as a forest firefighter, Search and Rescue, and forest recovery, as well as an avid hiker and hunter. He's seen bear, cougar, bobcat, elk, deer, fox, etc. but no sign of bigfoot. He did go to a logging camp and make sure everything was locked up for the night, when the next day two people claimed they found tracks in that same area the day my dad was there, when in reality there was nothing there. Events in some of my family's lives have given every indication that at least one major squatch event was a hoax.

My dad wouldn't waste one second of his time on this or any other forum. Why? Because it's a fantasy world, an incredible waste of time. No matter where you stand on any of these subjects, posting day after day about it over and over again is still engaging in the fantasy, no matter how you intend the definition of "Woo" as an immature insult, the fact of the matter is anybody wasting this much time in these subjects is "Wooing" fantasy, inviting it in, inviting responses about it, and engaging in a fantasy community where people do not have to talk face to face but instead write little messages to each other without facing any real consequence.

What else could we be doing right now? I know every time I have ever posted immediately after I realize I could have been doing something much more productive that would actually have some sort of material result. Money, food, clothing, shelter, warmth, a letter to a loved one, instead of endlessly debating a subject that is silly to begin with, yet here we are.

[Óðinn]

It's an addiction.

[William Parcher]

So basically it's a word that was made up to serve as an insult to dissenting views and add security to a fantasy internet community.


Not really. Woos are generally not dissenters per se. They make an original claim to something not supported by the evidence or scientific inquiry. Claiming you were abducted by aliens isn't exactly dissent. The term could be insulting and I do use it sparingly. I tend to use Bigfooter or Bigfoot believer.



You stand when you type on your computer?

C'mon now. You used standing as a figure of speech. Can't I?


What else could we be doing right now? I know every time I have ever posted immediately after I realize I could have been doing something much more productive that would actually have some sort of material result. Money, food, clothing, shelter, warmth, a letter to a loved one, instead of endlessly debating a subject that is silly to begin with, yet here we are.

I think BF skeptics who spend time (1 minute+/year) thinking and writing about Bigfoot are crazy. Please don't anyone report me for that because it is attacking the arguer not the argument.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Parch,

Here's (http://books.google.com/books?id=CsDBqy9oHHkC&lpg=PT60&dq=beck%20paranormal&pg=PT60#v=onepage&q=&f=false) Coleman trying to weasel away the supernatural aspects of Fred Beck's Ape Canyon story. I love how the changes in track size and creature heights in various retellings (http://books.google.com/books?id=CsDBqy9oHHkC&lpg=PT60&dq=beck%20paranormal&pg=PT61#v=onepage&q=&f=false) is spun as Beck trying to adapt his story for different audiences rather than it being a sign of lying. Hilarious stuff (which I must admit plays a good-sized part in why I follow the Bigfoot threads here).

[WGBH]

San Antonio 9-1-1 call link. If anyone is interested.


http://www.kens5.com/news/San-Antonio-couple-call-911-about-possible-bigfoot-sighting-78721707.html

[wolftrax]

Not really. Woos are generally not dissenters per se. They make an original claim to something not supported by the evidence or scientific inquiry. Claiming you were abducted by aliens isn't exactly dissent. The term could be insulting and I do use it sparingly. I tend to use Bigfooter or Bigfoot believer.


No, "Woo" is used as an insult. The word itself has no basis in reality but was invented and used on fantasy community forums. You even compared it to the word "Scoftic", also an insult. For some reason, people change their tone when faced with the confrontation that both of these words are just made up to replace calling someone "Stupid" and skirt around forum guidelines. But they carry stereotypes and prejudices with them as well. "Scoftics do this" and "Woos do that".

And though you state you use these words sparingly, over the last few weeks I have sporadically been here going through a few threads and each time seen some people stating that any beliefs at all in these fringe subjects makes a "Woo".

You know, it's funny, because I've even heard of someone who seems quite friendly here to my face, or rather in public view, but behind the scenes to others in shared private messages that I cannot be trusted because I allow for the possibility of sasquatch to be real. Kind of weird, really, but there again it comes down to those tribal units of social status I guess.

Though people here like to rely on scientific backing as support for their argument as a given or default position, I've seen very little scientific sources cited or actually used, and in many cases claims just as fantastic and unsupported being made.


C'mon now. You used standing as a figure of speech. Can't I?


You don't make a stand. You are a person who types comments on an internet forum.


I think BF skeptics who spend time (1 minute+/year) thinking and writing about Bigfoot are crazy. Please don't anyone report me for that because it is attacking the arguer not the argument.

Then why do you feel opposed to them also being susceptable to "Woo?" Obviously you don't feel that they are literally crazy, but all we have to do is break out of the "Skeptics vs. Believers" feud and look at the somewhat normal people in our lives who don't really care about what happens at any of these forums or on the internet, and realize what we are doing, all of us, is using an escape mechanism from our day to day realities. This is the very definition of fantasy. To escape into that fantasy, fits the definition of "Woo".

But of course, since "Woo" really is an insult, akin to calling someone "Stupid", then yeah you would be more opposed to having that applied to you or members of your social circle than the word "Crazy".

I do too.

[LTC8K6]

I allow for an admittedly very tiny possibility that sasquatch is or was real. As far as I can remember, that was my position when I first arrived at JREF, and it has not changed.

I believe if that tiny possibility were not there in my mind, I would not discuss the subject as much.

The fact that I am still interested in the subject, and still want to see evidence, and still want to see claimed photos/videos/tracks, etc., means that however tiny the possibility is, it's still there.

Also, there is still a tiny bit of nostalgia for my youthful faith in and fear of bigfoot.

[I Am He]

Wolftrax, my I ask you a question. If this Bigfoot stuff bothers you so much, why are you posting in the first place?



I Am He

[wolftrax]

You misunderstand, just like everybody who spends any time at all posting anything sasquatch related, I have a lot of interest in it. That's pretty much the point, that despite whatever anyone's stance on it's existence the fact that we invest any time at all into it is what we all have in common.

I am he
as you are he
as you are me
and we are all together

[Drewbot]

Don't forget that some people aren't here because of Sasquatch, but because of the people, characters, ideas that are affiliated with Sasquatch. If you are a people watcher, it just doesn't get any better than this.

[William Parcher]

Though people here like to rely on scientific backing as support for their argument as a given or default position, I've seen very little scientific sources cited or actually used, and in many cases claims just as fantastic and unsupported being made.

The Bigfoot debate sometimes cannot be supported with science. If anything, I think we would cite studies in social and cognitive sciences but those aren't specific to Bigfoot belief. These are general studies on the constancy of myth and fantasy in human nature and everyday life.

The evidence against Bigfoot is actually the lack of good evidence for Bigfoot. There has been way too much time and way too many claimed encounters to comfortably justify the lack of biological material. It would be more believable for me if there had only been 20 claimed encounters in the whole of history and with no plaster casts or photos/film. Hell yes. So rare and elusive that only 20 people have seen it in 300 years.

Eventually, the databases will hit 100,000 documented Bigfoot encounter claims - but still no confirmation. Then people can say the evidence is overwhelming and that Bigfoot must exist. You cannot have 100's of thousands of people claiming to see something that isn't there. It has to be there.

You don't make a stand. You are a person who types comments on an internet forum.

I thought you were using the term "stand" or "standing" as figure of speech. Where are you going with this?



Then why do you feel opposed to them also being susceptable to "Woo?" Obviously you don't feel that they are literally crazy, but all we have to do is break out of the "Skeptics vs. Believers" feud and look at the somewhat normal people in our lives who don't really care about what happens at any of these forums or on the internet, and realize what we are doing, all of us, is using an escape mechanism from our day to day realities. This is the very definition of fantasy. To escape into that fantasy, fits the definition of "Woo".

But of course, since "Woo" really is an insult, akin to calling someone "Stupid", then yeah you would be more opposed to having that applied to you or members of your social circle than the word "Crazy".

I do too.

I'm sorry. I'm not able to understand what you are arguing for. You think I should call people who think Bigfoot doesn't exist Woo?

[WGBH]

I have been called worse things then Woo. No biggie.

[wolftrax]

The Bigfoot debate sometimes cannot be supported with science. If anything, I think we would cite studies in social and cognitive sciences but those aren't specific to Bigfoot belief. These are general studies on the constancy of myth and fantasy in human nature and everyday life.


That would be interesting if anyone actually did present the results of studies in social and cognitive sciences, but then the debate would actually be supported with science.


The evidence against Bigfoot is actually the lack of good evidence for Bigfoot. There has been way too much time and way too many claimed encounters to comfortably justify the lack of biological material. It would be more believable for me if there had only been 20 claimed encounters in the whole of history and with no plaster casts or photos/film. Hell yes. So rare and elusive that only 20 people have seen it in 300 years.

Eventually, the databases will hit 100,000 documented Bigfoot encounter claims - but still no confirmation. Then people can say the evidence is overwhelming and that Bigfoot must exist. You cannot have 100's of thousands of people claiming to see something that isn't there. It has to be there.


So what you are telling me here is that it's not up to a skeptic to present anything backed by scientific findings when in a debate about sasquatch, but it is ok to rely on a default position that science doesn't support the belief in sasquatch and anyone that does is a "Woo". Further, it is ok to make claims or statements that are not supported by science, as long as it contradicts the belief in sasquatch, simply because the belief in sasquatch is not supported by the quality of evidence that is claimed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.


I thought you were using the term "stand" or "standing" as figure of speech. Where are you going with this?


How are you, or anyone here, making a "Stand"? Do you work at a genetics lab where DNA is submitted and examine alleged sasquatch hairs, only to find they come from a horse? Do you work for any research lab and have alleged sasquatch examined? Do you approach or are approached by anyone claiming to have evidence and then do anything to analyze it in any way? Do you do any experimentation to show how any of these things could be created?

Or do you, like everybody else, just make comments on an internet forum? Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest, it is what it is, not some grandiose stand is being made.


I'm sorry. I'm not able to understand what you are arguing for. You think I should call people who think Bigfoot doesn't exist Woo?

C'mon now, you're an intelligent guy, you don't have to keep turning your head to avoid seeing that you are pretty much on equal ground with everybody else who wastes the amount of time we do with this subject, and the lobbing of "Scoftic" and "Woo" back and forth is just a childish game that has little or nothing to do with any scientific value any of these debates on sasquatch's existence may have.

[Drewbot]

The use of the term 'scoftic', is referring those that believe Bigfoot does not exist, and those that are arguing from the side of scoffing rather than established principles of argument. People who argue against Bigfoots existence, by claiming that there is not enough evidence to support the claim 'Bigfoot exists' are not finding scientific evidence that Bigfoot does not exist, how can we possibly say that 'due to the forensic evidence we have found, we are saying Bigfoot does not exist' ? That is silly. We can not provide evidence of non-existence. Therefore the argument is, if you believe something exists, show evidence supporting that claim. If the beast exists, it must leave evidence of such existence. 'Woo' therefore applies to those that believe Bigfoot exists, because there is no reliable evidence of such existence.

The use of the term 'Woo', is referring someone who believes in something without legitimate science supporting that belief. Being that is impossible for me to find evidence supporting my belief that Bigfoot does not exist, 'Woo' can not apply to me.

PS, The only evidence I can find of Bigfoot's non-existence, is evidence of lack of evidence.

[William Parcher]

That would be interesting if anyone actually did present the results of studies in social and cognitive sciences, but then the debate would actually be supported with science.


Well, I think the subject and study of folklore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folklore) would be the place to look. Bigfoot/Sasquatch is a part of American and Canadian folklore. Are you looking for a scientific paper that says that folks have talked about nonexistent creatures as if they really did exist? What would you want to see in a study that supports BF skepticism in ways that skeptics are not already using or arguing?


So what you are telling me here is that it's not up to a skeptic to present anything backed by scientific findings when in a debate about sasquatch, but it is ok to rely on a default position that science doesn't support the belief in sasquatch and anyone that does is a "Woo". Further, it is ok to make claims or statements that are not supported by science, as long as it contradicts the belief in sasquatch, simply because the belief in sasquatch is not supported by the quality of evidence that is claimed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Skepticism is always reactionary. A skeptic can be anyone. A person becomes a skeptic when they react with doubt to a claim. Skeptics and skepticism do not exist without prior claims to react to. Nobody came out and said "Bigfoot does not exist" before somebody came out and said "Bigfoot exists".

Bigfoot skepticism (beyond simply saying "I doubt it, or no way") requires some intellectual creativity combined with factual knowledge or resources. Although there are generally applicable counter-arguments, you will constantly have to adapt your argument to any specific claimant. In nearly every situation, a stalemate of sorts will be reached. Only in some cases through argument will a BF skeptic convert to a BF believer, or vice-versa.

Eliminating names or name-calling (woo, scoftic, etc.) doesn't really change anything when it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of the debate. The believers still can't prove they are right, and the skeptics cannot either.

When you ask if it's "ok" for a skeptic to make claims against Bigfoot without a science paper at the ready - I start to wonder if you are making a request for an Ultimate Universal Arbitrator. Like some committee somewhere which decides if arguments or disputes are fair in their presentation and support. You see this happen with the burden of proof which gets tossed back and forth in BF threads like a hot potato.



How are you, or anyone here, making a "Stand"? Do you work at a genetics lab where DNA is submitted and examine alleged sasquatch hairs, only to find they come from a horse? Do you work for any research lab and have alleged sasquatch examined? Do you approach or are approached by anyone claiming to have evidence and then do anything to analyze it in any way? Do you do any experimentation to show how any of these things could be created?

Or do you, like everybody else, just make comments on an internet forum? Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest, it is what it is, not some grandiose stand is being made.

Trying to get back to your first use of "standing"... the BF skeptics' primary standing is that we have no physical biological evidence for Bigfoot and we really should have that at this point in time (history) if Bigfoot exists. Underlying that is the general presumption that if Bigfoot biological material were presented to qualified examiners (science) it would quickly become known and announced to the world by way of mass media. A genuine Bigfoot confirmation would indeed be the science and social big news of the 21st Century. So at least for myself, I'm confident that I would be informed of the confirmed existence of Bigfoot via the headline news.


C'mon now, you're an intelligent guy, you don't have to keep turning your head to avoid seeing that you are pretty much on equal ground with everybody else who wastes the amount of time we do with this subject, and the lobbing of "Scoftic" and "Woo" back and forth is just a childish game that has little or nothing to do with any scientific value any of these debates on sasquatch's existence may have.

You didn't even mention the name "Pattycake" which I made up to designate someone who thinks Patty is a real Bigfoot. Like "Scoftic", it's a quick and easy way to denote a group without a lengthy descriptive name. I wouldn't take offense to being called a scoftic, but I might argue that the term doesn't always fit me according to Knights' original definition. He wanted it to mean somebody who doesn't even look at the evidence before declaring Bigfoot a myth. Well gosh darn, I sure do look at the evidence.

Something else I should mention. This online BF skepticism thing can get pretty boring without humor and interesting tangents. Often the humor is targeted and barbed and aimed at the believers; the ones that are sometimes called Woo.

[LTC8K6]

I don't think I've ever scoffed at a footer simply because they believed in bigfoot, if at all.

I didn't put Lu on ignore because she believes in bigfoot.

I don't have sweaty on ignore because he believes in bigfoot. (If he does, I'm not quite sure)

It's always been the way they present their case or they way they debate as far as I can remember.

I don't think any less of anyone who believes in bigfoot or thinks they may have seen one. I just think they have made a mistake. I make mistakes all the time.

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot hoaxers fascinate me and I have many unanswered questions about them. Can they be stereotyped or categorized in any ways? Why do they do it? Are they believers or skeptics?

Questions don't get answered mainly because we have no (or little) direct information from the hoaxers themselves. You can read hundreds of stories concerning "here's why I think I saw a Bigfoot" or "here's why I think these are Bigfoot tracks". But where can I read stories like "here's why I lied about seeing a Bigfoot" or "here's why I made some fake Bigfoot tracks"? I want to hear what motivates the hoaxers in their own words.

If Bigfoot belief or witness sets a person up for ridicule and social ostracism... then why would anyone falsely claim (hoax) a belief or the evidence? Is it that the grief and troubles that BF believers face is actually overstated?

Have people always guessed or known that submitting false sighting reports (pure fiction) to Green, BFRO, etc. simply doesn't put yourself at any real and meaningful risk?

[RayG]

I don't think I've ever scoffed at a footer simply because they believed in bigfoot, if at all.

I think I've only scoffed at one in particular, but it's not because they believe in bigfoot, it's because of the book they produced about bigfoot. Completely filled with absurdities, contradictions, lack of science, and flat out inept research.

I'd mention her name but then I'd do this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5BKX3QCjk0), and that wouldn't be polite.

RayG

[Drewbot]

No wonder people still see Bigfoot, it is being pushed on little kids trying to learn to color
http://www.thecolor.com/Category/Coloring/Cryptids.aspx

[xblade]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

The point is that I'm not saying it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist, but for Bigfoot to survive and thrive, it is going to have to do things that will invariably result in us having a type specimen for them like we do for every other NA mammal. What makes Bigfoot so special?

Well, imaginary creatures are capable of doing most anything, so that probably explains why biggy foot is so special. If it can be imagined, bigfoot can probably do it.

[William Parcher]

Fun.

[tsig]

You go with your gut and what the situation feels like. Nothing about what I saw seemed typical for lack of a better word. It seemed abnormal. There was something about what we saw that didn't feel like it was right. Unfortunately there isn't much more I can add than that. It happened to quickly. All I can say is that something wasn't "normal".

You go with your gut I'll go with my brain. Bigfeet running down the road will get hit eventually.

[tsig]

Don't forget that some people aren't here because of Sasquatch, but because of the people, characters, ideas that are affiliated with Sasquatch. If you are a people watcher, it just doesn't get any better than this.

It's like watching a play where every now and then you get to say a line.

[tsig]

I have been called worse things then Woo. No biggie.

You might want to give that further thought.

[tsig]

Bigfoot hoaxers fascinate me and I have many unanswered questions about them. Can they be stereotyped or categorized in any ways? Why do they do it? Are they believers or skeptics?

?

They do it because they can. It's fun to watch the cityfolk go crazy in the woods.

[WGBH]

You might want to give that further thought.

Are you referring to when you called me a liar?

[HarryHenderson]

Well, imaginary creatures are capable of doing most anything, so that probably explains why biggy foot is so special. If it can be imagined, bigfoot can probably do it.
And he hits a ton eighty. My own 'hope' all those years that there really was a Bigfoot turned south precisely when the 'discussion' allowed Bigfoot to run 55 MPH and have pets. "Yeah man, it was the damndest thing, we were comin' down this on-ramp and I'll be darned if Bigfoot didn't pass us like we was standing still." And even if we allow Bigfoot having...pets, there's still not one recorded Bigfoot sighting at a Petco™ or a Petsmart™ store. Or is there? Yes I've heard of that one story where "something all hairy and smelly spilled a bunch of kibble and then ran out the door", but I don't think that was Bigfoot 'cause that story is from Jamaica mon. ;)

That Bigfoot, he's good, he's real good!™

[kitakaze]

Something else I should mention. This online BF skepticism thing can get pretty boring without humor and interesting tangents.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=314&pictureid=2030

Good point.

[Drewbot]

Fun.

Did you notice in the coloring link I posted above, that they even got the foot anatomy correct between the Bigfoot and the Yeti? The Bigfoot has human like feet, and the Yeti looks similar to the Shipton print. I thought that was funny in that here we have a bunch of non-existant critters, and they thought to hire someone who knew the subtle difference between the two beasts.

[William Parcher]

They (Bigfoot hoaxers) do it because they can. It's fun to watch the cityfolk go crazy in the woods.

Are you saying that "cityfolk" are vulnerable to BF hoaxing, and maybe more than "countryfolk"?

[WGBH]

I would say the internet folks are more vulnerable to hoaxes. Remember how all the internet Bigfoot sites crashed on Georgia Hoax weekend August 2008?

[William Parcher]

"Internet folks" are people with access to the Internet?

Those without any web access are not likely to be fooled by Bigfoot stories? Would it go something like this?...

Web Pete: "Hey Dave, I just heard they got a Bigfoot body in Georgia and it's gonna be on the news."

Webless Dave: "Nope, I'm not believing it, Pete. There ain't no Bigfoot anywhere."

[LTC8K6]

I would say the internet folks are more vulnerable to hoaxes. Remember how all the internet Bigfoot sites crashed on Georgia Hoax weekend August 2008?

My recollection is that they blocked non-members for a while in anticipation of overloads...

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, I believe BFF and Cryptomundo pretty much crashed before they limited access.
Membership on BFF took a giant leap ..

[LTC8K6]

I thought Cryptomundo crashed shortly after Loren realized he'd endorsed the Georgia Suitfoot... :D

[William Parcher]

I was able to view BFF (unregistered guest) for a period of time when there were enormous numbers of visitors on that day. Everything was slow to react and page-turning took minutes. Then later they did various things to help themselves by restricting what non-members could access or see - like removing the "who's online" feature at the bottom, removing avatars, removing the search function and then finally barring the site access by anyone not a registered member. After the flood, they restored everything for non-members except search function and avatar view. To this day, folks like me cannot use their search or see any avatars.

[wolftrax]

The use of the term 'Woo', is referring someone who believes in something without legitimate science supporting that belief. Being that is impossible for me to find evidence supporting my belief that Bigfoot does not exist, 'Woo' can not apply to me.


You did have some sort of sighting that you believed at the time was of a sasquatch, right? So then you would be called a "Former-Woo"? "Post-Woo?" "Recovering Woo-aholic"? "I could be called a Woo yesterday, but I cannot be called Woo today"? "Woo's on first?"


Bigfoot hoaxers fascinate me and I have many unanswered questions about them. Can they be stereotyped or categorized in any ways? Why do they do it? Are they believers or skeptics?

Questions don't get answered mainly because we have no (or little) direct information from the hoaxers themselves. You can read hundreds of stories concerning "here's why I think I saw a Bigfoot" or "here's why I think these are Bigfoot tracks". But where can I read stories like "here's why I lied about seeing a Bigfoot" or "here's why I made some fake Bigfoot tracks"? I want to hear what motivates the hoaxers in their own words.

If Bigfoot belief or witness sets a person up for ridicule and social ostracism... then why would anyone falsely claim (hoax) a belief or the evidence? Is it that the grief and troubles that BF believers face is actually overstated?

Have people always guessed or known that submitting false sighting reports (pure fiction) to Green, BFRO, etc. simply doesn't put yourself at any real and meaningful risk?


From what I gathered from a Wallace family member, the reasoning behind it was the joy of pulling pranks and watching people's reactions.

[wolftrax]

Eliminating names or name-calling (woo, scoftic, etc.) doesn't really change anything when it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of the debate. The believers still can't prove they are right, and the skeptics cannot either.


Well it would eliminate the huge detours these threads on this subject take and raise the level of maturity of the discussion. I have to be honest, I have to skim most of these threads and find it takes a lot more effort to skip the personal shtuff to find anything of real value.

[William Parcher]

From what I gathered from a Wallace family member, the reasoning behind it was the joy of pulling pranks and watching people's reactions.


I believe that. But only certain kinds of reactions would provide much entertainment for the Wallaces. I wonder how they would feel if the local news headline and gossip was "Huge Fake Footprints Found - Chuckles All Around and All Wonder as to Who is Responsible for the Prank"

Bigfoot hoaxes kinda fall flat when folks are skeptical and have no reason to think they are real.

[Drewbot]

You did have some sort of sighting that you believed at the time was of a sasquatch, right? So then you would be called a "Former-Woo"? "Post-Woo?" "Recovering Woo-aholic"? "I could be called a Woo yesterday, but I cannot be called Woo today"? "Woo's on first?"

What-woo talkin' 'bout Willis?

No, for a time I was eating the Woo Cornbread. Then I started researching hallucinations as an explanation. And experienced a couple more instances while hunting, where I saw a branch and my mind turned it into a deer antler, or a burned out stump, and my brain told me, in those predawn minutes, that that was a Black bear standing up looking at me. And I realized two things.
A. That people's sensory interpretation is powerful enough to fool their conscious minds.
B. That a large percentage of normal people have hallucinations, or have instances like Tube's (with the plastic bag) or mine (with the tree stump)where the mind incorporates subconscious inputs into their conscious sensory interpretation, resulting in misinterpretations of sensory cues.

[mikeyx]

What-woo talkin' 'bout Willis?

No, for a time I was eating the Woo Cornbread. Then I started researching hallucinations as an explanation. And experienced a couple more instances while hunting, where I saw a branch and my mind turned it into a deer antler, or a burned out stump, and my brain told me, in those predawn minutes, that that was a Black bear standing up looking at me. And I realized two things.
A. That people's sensory interpretation is powerful enough to fool their conscious minds.
B. That a large percentage of normal people have hallucinations, or have instances like Tube's (with the plastic bag) or mine (with the tree stump)where the mind incorporates subconscious inputs into their conscious sensory interpretation, resulting in misinterpretations of sensory cues.

The want to see factor can be thrown at blobsquatchs, many tracks and stick structures also, I for one think they in paticular get way too much attention. Just too easily caused by wind damage and the like.

[GT/CS]

What-woo talkin' 'bout Willis?

No, for a time I was eating the Woo Cornbread. Then I started researching hallucinations as an explanation. And experienced a couple more instances while hunting, where I saw a branch and my mind turned it into a deer antler, or a burned out stump, and my brain told me, in those predawn minutes, that that was a Black bear standing up looking at me. And I realized two things.
A. That people's sensory interpretation is powerful enough to fool their conscious minds.
B. That a large percentage of normal people have hallucinations, or have instances like Tube's (with the plastic bag) or mine (with the tree stump)where the mind incorporates subconscious inputs into their conscious sensory interpretation, resulting in misinterpretations of sensory cues.

I think a lot of people take issue with the word, 'hallucination' because they equate it to serious mental problems. For example I wouldn't think of mistaking a tree stump for a bear as being a hallucination. It may be the correct use of the word but if we could find another word to describe the same thing it may help.

[RayG]

..if we could find another word to describe the same thing it may help.

Misperception?

RayG

[Óðinn]

..if we could find another word to describe the same thing it may help.
Brain-fart?

[Skeptical Greg]

Optical delusion ?

[William Parcher]

Kathie Lee and Hoda from the NBC Today Show went out looking for Bigfoot with Don Keating in Ohio. They didn't find one but it sure is fun to watch (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34430631#34430631). They learn the lingo quick from Keating. Footer. Footin'. Foot. Wood on wood. A yell. Stick stack.

[HarryHenderson]

That so funny. Two goofy women being...two goofy women. They sure had a hard time with the "...25 years?" thing! And gotta dig that name Hoda Kotb. That poor Don Keating. The Daily Show™ coulda had him beggin' for mercy. Salt Fork aka 'Bigfoot Flats' State Park handicapped parking area again huh? I wonder if Keating's 'Bigfoot Is Partial To Handicapped Parking Lots' group could get into any kind of legal trouble for regularly beating-a-dead-horse in a no-beating-a-dead-horse zone?

[manofthesea]

For example I wouldn't think of mistaking a tree stump for a bear as being a hallucination. It may be the correct use of the word but if we could find another word to describe the same thing it may help.

I've seen the word 'pareidolia' used frequently here.

[kitakaze]

Kathie Lee and Hoda from the NBC Today Show went out looking for Bigfoot with Don Keating in Ohio. They didn't find one but it sure is fun to watch (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34430631#34430631). They learn the lingo quick from Keating. Footer. Footin'. Foot. Wood on wood. A yell. Stick stack.

Oh, that is delicious. Keating and Kathy Lee. Wood on wood and a stick stack attack. We're footin', baby. Did Keating share the gold?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1229

Bigfoot came down like Deep Impact.

Did Keating show Kathy Lee and Hoda how to put some ketchup on it?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1230

[River]

Kathie Lee and Hoda from the NBC Today Show went out looking for Bigfoot with Don Keating in Ohio. They didn't find one but it sure is fun to watch (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/34430631#34430631). They learn the lingo quick from Keating. Footer. Footin'. Foot. Wood on wood. A yell. Stick stack.

I like at the end of the program "but twenty five years... mmm" As she sticks her finger in her mouth (kinda sexy?) haha. Kinda feel bad for the guy, then you have to just laugh.

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

[WGBH]

Oh, that is delicious. Keating and Kathy Lee. Wood on wood and a stick stack attack. We're footin', baby. Did Keating share the gold?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1229

Bigfoot came down like Deep Impact.

Did Keating show Kathy Lee and Hoda how to put some ketchup on it?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1230

The first picture is one of the many yearly hoaxed prints found during the conference. It is suspected the film crew from New Zealand was responsible. We will be able to tell when the show episode airs.

Keating did not put the ketchup around the supposed print, the idiots who found it did.

Anyway, the TV spot was embarrassing and to be expected.

[William Parcher]

Anyway, the TV spot was embarrassing and to be expected.

Meldrum and Keating were representing Bigfoot. Would you have preferred using different people to explain that Bigfoot is real?

[LTC8K6]

Optical delusion ?

Brain-fart?

Misperception?

Delusions of grandeur? :D

[kitakaze]

The first picture is one of the many yearly hoaxed prints found during the conference. It is suspected the film crew from New Zealand was responsible. We will be able to tell when the show episode airs.

I'm confused. That print photo has a big 2006 on it and has been on Keating's site for some time, while Leigh Hart and his film crew were at the Ohio Bigfoot Conference this year.:boggled:

Keating did not put the ketchup around the supposed print, the idiots who found it did.

Ah yes, Keating may not have squirted the ketchup, he only put the condiment laden marking on his website as Bigfoot evidence. Therefore he apparently finds ketchup art on dirt as acceptable.

Trust me, you don't need to defend someone else's weirdness.

Anyway, the TV spot was embarrassing and to be expected.

What was embarrassing about it? I think Keating handled himself well and with humility. And he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary for a Bigfoot enthusiast. Meldrum was certainly his usual self. Kathy Lee and Hoda had fun with it, but that is to be expected. Where's the embarrassment? Simply being shown?

[WGBH]

I'm confused. That print photo has a big 2006 on it and has been on Keating's site for some time, while Leigh Hart and his film crew were at the Ohio Bigfoot Conference this year.:boggled:



OK, it's one of the ones from 2006. The one from this year looked just like it.

[WGBH]

Meldrum and Keating were representing Bigfoot. Would you have preferred using different people to explain that Bigfoot is real?

Dr.Meldrum and Keating were not "representing" myself. Exactly how would anyone explain that Bigfoot is real?

[WGBH]

What was embarrassing about it? I think Keating handled himself well and with humility. And he wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary for a Bigfoot enthusiast. Meldrum was certainly his usual self. Kathy Lee and Hoda had fun with it, but that is to be expected. Where's the embarrassment? Simply being shown?

Keating handled himself fine. Kathy Lee and Hoda were not having fun with it, they were mocking it.

[RayG]

I'm confused. That print photo has a big 2006 on it and has been on Keating's site for some time, while Leigh Hart and his film crew were at the Ohio Bigfoot Conference this year.:boggled:

Ah grasshopper, that's because bigfoot is timeless. Old news is just as good as no new news. :D

RayG

[kitakaze]

OK, it's one of the ones from 2006. The one from this year looked just like it.

So that 2006 one that is clearly fake looks just like a 2009 one that you suspect was made by a Kiwi film crew. What makes you think Leigh Hart's crew faked Bigfoot prints in Salt Fork State Park?

[kitakaze]

Ah grasshopper, that's because bigfoot is timeless. Old news is just as good as no new news. :D

RayG

Too true. I don't think Bigfootery has had any new news for about 51 years now.

[kitakaze]

Keating handled himself fine. Kathy Lee and Hoda were not having fun with it, they were mocking it.

Oh, I don't think I'd say they were mocking the idea of Bigfoot being real. The set it up well, talk about how even some scientists think there is something out there, cue Meldrum. Accurately they assess the situation and say that even after centuries, we have no answers. In comes Don and they set him up nice. He's a cryptozoologist with 25 years experience looking for the beast. He's only found it twice but he doesn't give up. That's OK because he's in the right place - Salt Fork State Park - Sasquatch Triangle.

They say there have been hundreds of sightings in SFSP and then they bring in Hal Harper, the park manager, who talks about the story of Bigfoot busting a window and causing havoc at the ranger station here...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1224

They mocked themselves a bit. They said they were idiots. Kathy Lee made herself out to be a chicken and made fun of Hoda's monster feet. Sure, they tease Keating for looking for Bigfoot for 25 years and having no better methods than wood on wood and hollering, but come on, that's nothing.

No, I think as far as Bigfoot press goes, the Today Show was pretty nice. Meanwhile, the footer zoo at Salt Fork is sure to see a spike, no doubt.

Yeah, they really could have mocked Keating hard. Hey buddy, 25 years and you can't find a population of 8ft beasts in a 23 square mile park with extremely limited natural food resources for an ape? You couldn't catch a cold, Keating. News flash - it's a myth. AKA not real. What's with the ketchup art on your website, BTW?

Yeah, that would be mocking and it wouldn't be uncalled for.

[WGBH]

So that 2006 one that is clearly fake looks just like a 2009 one that you suspect was made by a Kiwi film crew. What makes you think Leigh Hart's crew faked Bigfoot prints in Salt Fork State Park?

Yes, the print looked similar, it was a cookie cutter fake like that. Search "Leigh Hart's Mysterious Planet" on youtube. I would have given a link but youtube was acting weird tonight.

[kitakaze]

Yes, the print looked similar, it was a cookie cutter fake like that. Search "Leigh Hart's Mysterious Planet" on youtube. I would have given a link but youtube was acting weird tonight.

I've watched his Bigfoot segment stuff. If I look again, will I find an explanation for why you think his film crew made fake tracks at SFSP this year?

[William Parcher]

Dr.Meldrum and Keating were not "representing" myself. Exactly how would anyone explain that Bigfoot is real?

Like I said they were representing Bigfoot. Meldrum mentioned hundreds of plaster casts in his lab and how there is no way that that many people are faking tracks. Keating said he has seen Bigfoot.

Those are two people explaining in different ways that Bigfoot is real. They did it right there on the TV. In a significant way, they represent you as well because you explain that Bigfoot is real too (but not on TV).

The Today Show has a huge audience. Two people (Footers) were on that show and explained that Bigfoot is real.

[WGBH]

I've watched his Bigfoot segment stuff. If I look again, will I find an explanation for why you think his film crew made fake tracks at SFSP this year?

No, I guess not if you did not get it the first time you watched it. I do not know for certain they made the fake track.

His entire weekend there was one big comedic hoax. From lying about his occupation to drunkenly stumbling around the woods at night(complete with alcohol flask in hand) attempting to hoax or frighten the throng of clueless conference goers in the forest. I told him off for his actions very loudly and in his face right in the middle of the road when he approached me. I suspect that is why he took shots at me in his article.

You should have seen it. It was definitely one of your "Bigfoot Gong shows". Except he or his film crew could have been injured doing a stunt like that.

[WGBH]

Those are two people explaining in different ways that Bigfoot is real. They did it right there on the TV. In a significant way, they represent you as well because you explain that Bigfoot is real too (but not on TV).


You cannot "explain" that Bigfoot is real. Verifiable proof that Bigfoot is real is needed. We are in the same field of investigation yes, but they do not represent me.

[Marduk]

Meldrum mentioned hundreds of plaster casts in his lab and how there is no way that that many people are faking tracksl.

10 people faking 1 set of tracks a year would produce 100 casts (minimum) in a decade
Foot print casts have been popular for 60 years and the U.S. has a population of over 300 million people. Meldrum sucks at math doesn't he
;)

[Drewbot]

Dr.Meldrum and Keating were not "representing" myself. Exactly how would anyone explain that Bigfoot is real?

How? you ask? Why the same way you explain ghosts, aliens or any other folk story are true. You make up a story, or recount one that you heard, add a few embellishments, and bam, you convince someone.

Well, Hota, and Kathy, A few years ago, in this very State Park, a young couple decided to spend a weekend together, camping, just up the road. They cooked some hot dogs, had a couple beers, and decided to turn in for the night, at about 11:30 the girl thought she heard something walking around the campsite. She shook her boyfriend awake, and whispered that something was in the camp. The boyfriend (Who was a hunter, and had a gun with him) said it's probably a raccoon, 'go back to sleep'. A few minutes later, the dishes from dinner, which were in a rack drying, smashed loudly against a tree, bringing both campers upright. The man, slowly unzippered the tent, and looked out, THERE, standing 10 feet from the tent was a snarling hairy beast, 8 feet tall, LOOKING RIGHT AT HIM!, he turned with a look of fear on his face, and said, 'we have to run for the car', (he grabbed the gun, but was unable to shoot the beast for some reason) they both could hear growling now as the beast moved off to the right, at that instant they both bolted from the tent and ran to the left and right to the their Honda Civic, just as they got in, the beast pushed on the car shaking it and howling maniacally, the couple drove off leaving their gear right there, never to camp again.

[William Parcher]

How? you ask? Why the same way you explain ghosts, aliens or any other folk story are true. You make up a story, or recount one that you heard, add a few embellishments, and bam, you convince someone.

Just for clarification - I wasn't meaning to include "convince someone" as part of the "explaining". That is an entirely different project. Meldrum and Keating did explain that Bigfoot exists.

I just don't want John or you to think that once you have explained something... people will automatically believe it. I was not implying that. John understands firsthand what this means and that it is true. Many people explain to him that Bigfoot does not exist. He doesn't believe it though.

There is a kind of reversal of roles that can be found. There are extreme pro-Bigfoot radio shows and forums. This is where you will sometimes find Bigfooters making fun of skeptics and sometimes with ridicule. Heavy sarcasm and wide-eyes as they ask what kind of a fool you must be to think that tens of thousands of people over centuries have been lying. Hundreds of huge footprints in remote locations. A film that shows a Bigfoot walking away. You have got to be some kind of blind idiot to think this creature is not out there.

[LuvGodzilla]

Regardless of what people think when they say "they don't represent me", these people DO represent the searchers of Bigfoot and thus "represent you". It's the same as anyone saying their local politicians in office don't represent them when in fact they are in office to represent you even if you disagree with their form of representation.

As long as Footers put these folks on pedestals or refer to them as knowledgeable go to people, They Represent You. Those folks who put their faces on Television representing Bigfootery get what comes from the majorities opinion of this fringe subject and this recent Kathy Lee/Hoda example is exactly what should have been expected.

[WGBH]

Regardless of what people think when they say "they don't represent me", these people DO represent the searchers of Bigfoot and thus "represent you". It's the same as anyone saying their local politicians in office don't represent them when in fact they are in office to represent you even if you disagree with their form of representation.

As long as Footers put these folks on pedestals or refer to them as knowledgeable go to people, They Represent You. Those folks who put their faces on Television representing Bigfootery get what comes from the majorities opinion of this fringe subject and this recent Kathy Lee/Hoda example is exactly what should have been expected.

I do not put these people "on pedestals". I do not agree with many of thier theories or techniques. Thus they do not represent me. They may represent the field, but not me personally.

I agree about "if you put yourself out there" you can expect the type of treatment you get from the media or even the JREF. But, just because it is accepted does not make it right.

Thanks for the clarfication WP, and we are on the same page.

[RayG]

Beckjord was certainly a go-to-guy for media types, but he hardly represented the majority of bigfoot enthusiasts.

RayG

[Drewbot]

It is irrelevant WHICH person the media goes to for Bigfoot expertise. Anyone that they choose must be one of the following:

1. Lying
2. So emotionally attached to the subject that they rationalize useless bits of legend and fakery as 'evidence'
3. cookoo (i.e. Beckjord)

[William Parcher]

Beckjord was certainly a go-to-guy for media types, but he hardly represented the majority of bigfoot enthusiasts.


I know you've been paying attention to Bigfootery for a very long time. It's my understanding that Beckjord began his Footin not unlike the majority then made a transition in beliefs and behavior so that he became a very odd minority. Isn't it true that for a time he was a "flesh/blood" believer who went looking pretty much like anyone else?

Did the media consistently seek him even after he was fully on the shapeshifter/paranormal Bigfoot? When he was on David Letterman, was he explaining that Bigfoot is a paranormal shapeshifter who could slip in and out of other dimensions?

[WGBH]

It is irrelevant WHICH person the media goes to for Bigfoot expertise. Anyone that they choose must be one of the following:

1. Lying
2. So emotionally attached to the subject that they rationalize useless bits of legend and fakery as 'evidence'
3. cookoo (i.e. Beckjord)

This post is irrelevant.

[Drewbot]

This post is irrelevant.

No it's not. Parcher asked this: Meldrum and Keating were representing Bigfoot. Would you have preferred using different people to explain that Bigfoot is real?

I was merely pointing out, that whichever person they chose, he/she had to fit into one of these categories.

It is irrelevant WHICH person the media goes to for Bigfoot expertise. Anyone that they choose must be one of the following:

1. Lying
2. So emotionally attached to the subject that they rationalize useless bits of legend and fakery as 'evidence'
3. cookoo (i.e. Beckjord)

Which one would you rather they have picked John?

They chose 2, and you are not happy with it. So that leaves 1 or 3.

[kitakaze]

It is irrelevant WHICH person the media goes to for Bigfoot expertise. Anyone that they choose must be one of the following:

1. Lying
2. So emotionally attached to the subject that they rationalize useless bits of legend and fakery as 'evidence'
3. cookoo (i.e. Beckjord)

I don't think that is completely fair or accurate. Emotionally attached to the belief in Bigfoot? I can think of a lot of people in that category, but I wouldn't put Meldrum there. Keating? Maybe. I think he thinks he saw one and is just that kind of fortean slanted dude that will keep at it for 25+ years, start a group, and have conferences every year.

We all know Meldrum had the Bigfoot bug since he was wee, and that it sent him towards anthropology, but Meldrum is rationally convinced that Bigfoot exists. I disagree with the rationale, but I don't think it's a desire to believe over logic thing. Just a bad logic thing...

All those tracks can't be faked or misidentified?

Why not?

[kitakaze]

I know you've been paying attention to Bigfootery for a very long time. It's my understanding that Beckjord began his Footin not unlike the majority then made a transition in beliefs and behavior so that he became a very odd minority. Isn't it true that for a time he was a "flesh/blood" believer who went looking pretty much like anyone else?

Did the media consistently seek him even after he was fully on the shapeshifter/paranormal Bigfoot? When he was on David Letterman, was he explaining that Bigfoot is a paranormal shapeshifter who could slip in and out of other dimensions?

I'm pretty sure he was deep into Guanoland by the time he was on Letterman.

Man, I wish this was on youtube (http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/lettermaneb.jpg).

[William Parcher]

I may have answered my own question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5360950&postcount=3071). It seems that in 1979, Beckjord was not talking to the media about Bigfoot being something other than flesh & blood. In this article he is John Beckford. But is has to be him. Was that a reporter error or did he actually give that name? Probably error from a phone interview without asking for exact spelling.

[kitakaze]

I may have answered my own question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5360950&postcount=3071). It seems that in 1979, Beckjord was not talking to the media about Bigfoot being something other than flesh & blood. In this article he is John Beckford. But is has to be him. Was that a reporter error or did he actually give that name? Probably error from a phone interview without asking for exact spelling.

There's no doubt that was Beckjord. You're right, he didn't toot his crazy train there...

That approach appalls John Beckford of Seattle, another emphatic figure in the Bigfoot movement. "It might be a missing link," he says. "We may have a better chance communicating with this animal than with any other."

Note the importance he places on communicating with Bigfoot. This became a big thing for him. That reminds me of the similar emphasis that his wannabe, Burgstahler, places on communication with Bigfoot. Was Beckjord already off the deep end then and just playing nice for the interviewer? From the references that I've read, Beckjord was already paranormal guy when he went on Letterman.

[WGBH]

I was merely pointing out, that whichever person they chose, he/she had to fit into one of these categories.


And I am merely pointing out that your choices are bunk. Mean, Insulting and disrespectful.

[kitakaze]

And I am merely pointing out that your choices are bunk. Mean, Insulting and disrespectful.

I think that's fair. I mean, look at Scott Herriott on Anderson Cooper 360...

nq7_5DZ3Ik8

I think Scott did an excellent job at representing Bigfootery. He came off as neither koo koo, a liar, or an emotionally attached desperate woo. He was still bringing gobbledy-gook, but at least he did it well.

[WGBH]

I think that's fair. I mean, look at Scott Herriott on Anderson Cooper 360...

nq7_5DZ3Ik8

I think Scott did an excellent job at representing Bigfootery. He came off as neither koo koo, a liar, or an emotionally attached desperate woo. He was still bringing gobbledy-gook, but at least he did it well.

I saw that live and I agree.

[Drewbot]

I don't think that is completely fair or accurate. Emotionally attached to the belief in Bigfoot? I can think of a lot of people in that category, but I wouldn't put Meldrum there. Keating? Maybe. I think he thinks he saw one and is just that kind of fortean slanted dude that will keep at it for 25+ years, start a group, and have conferences every year.

We all know Meldrum had the Bigfoot bug since he was wee, and that it sent him towards anthropology, but Meldrum is rationally convinced that Bigfoot exists. I disagree with the rationale, but I don't think it's a desire to believe over logic thing. Just a bad logic thing...

All those tracks can't be faked or misidentified?

Why not?

I think Meldrum is smart enough to know the science doesn't support Bigfoot. I think he is emotionally attached to Bigfoot, and the attention/money he derives from it.

I also think that Scott, while being skeptical of much of Bigfootry, is emotionally attached to the subject of Bigfoot, I think he would be the first to admit that.

Both of the people you cite, fit in to my interpretation of the 2nd category. John said he wasn't happy with them choosing Keating, who also fits in category 2, so I asked which one he would rather have be on the show.

It is not insulting, the three categories I gave are representations of the three categories of Bigfooters that I have experienced. If you can find another category, please describe it.

[kitakaze]

It is not insulting, the three categories I gave are representations of the three categories of Bigfooters that I have experienced. If you can find another category, please describe it.

I know you weren't insulting John. I just know John and you and that John would take it as an insult, which wouldn't be unfair. I think Meldrum tries to come off Vulcan where Bigfoot is concerned but often ends up more Romulan in his references to skepticism. I think while grizzled, Krantz was more reasonable in that regard. He just really wanted to shoot Bigfoot. The category I would make for Meldrum is credulous based on faulty logic.

[WGBH]

I think Meldrum is smart enough to know the science doesn't support Bigfoot. I think he is emotionally attached to Bigfoot, and the attention/money he derives from it.

I also think that Scott, while being skeptical of much of Bigfootry, is emotionally attached to the subject of Bigfoot, I think he would be the first to admit that.

Both of the people you cite, fit in to my interpretation of the 2nd category. John said he wasn't happy with them choosing Keating, who also fits in category 2, so I asked which one he would rather have be on the show.

It is not insulting, the three categories I gave are representations of the three categories of Bigfooters that I have experienced. If you can find another category, please describe it.

I agree totally with the first two statements.

I never said I was unhappy with them choosing Keating. I said the entire segment was crap. Don probably did the best he could. I also said that Keating and Meldrum do not represent me.

I am sure when the segment of mysterious planet airs it will be open season on myself and some of my friends.

Drew it is insulting to some, it may not be meant that way. Exactly, you gave representations of what you have personally experienced. It does not represent everyone. I do not feel a need to categorize, knock yourself out.

Where would you list Monica on your 3 choices? What about me? Why don't you start a thread like that on one of the Bigfoot forums?

[Drewbot]

Where would you list Monica on your 3 choices? What about me? Why don't you start a thread like that on one of the Bigfoot forums?

No need for a thread. Monica is a #2, you are a number 2. I am emotionally attached to the SUBJECT of Bigfoot, not to the existence of the creature.

The category I would make for Meldrum is credulous based on faulty logic.

That is where we part ways, because I think he knows that the 'evidence' is crap, but he is playing to the crowd.

[WGBH]

[QUOTE=Drewbot;5435067]No need for a thread. Monica is a #2, you are a number 2. I am emotionally attached to the SUBJECT of Bigfoot, not to the existence of the creature.
QUOTE]

I am emotionally attached in what way? There are several human emotions. If you mean anger, then yes. If you mean frustration, hell yes. If Bigfoot were discovered tomorrow, I could walk away from it with no problem whatsoever. I know, it's selfish right?

I could do without Bigfoot. The subject has never interested me from a scientific or zoological angle. You know a little about me Drew, you know I am more into the artistic topics such as music, writing and comic art. I was drawn into this not of my own choice.

Don't you know why there is the inside joke within the community about my being the World's Greatest Bigfoot Hunter (WGBH):D. It's because when I am out in the field, I am not hunting for anything. I am just enjoying my time in the wilderness and trying to learn and have fun. It is a bonus if I can be help to the investigations.

[kitakaze]

I could do without Bigfoot. The subject has never interested me from a scientific or zoological angle.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=173&pictureid=1133

Me cry on inside.

[WGBH]

:D

[William Parcher]

I am sure when the segment of mysterious planet airs it will be open season on myself and some of my friends.

That will be the opportunity for Meldrum and Keating to say that you do not represent them.

[WGBH]

That will be the opportunity for Meldrum and Keating to say that you do not represent them.

God I hope so.

[Drewbot]

WGBH-

Are you saying that Meldrum is the voice of mainstream Bigfootry, but you are not part of mainstream bigfootry?

Does anyone out there represent people who think they saw Bigfoot, and is haunted by the sighting? Or do you claim to be represented by noone except yourself? If so, then you would not be happy unless you yourself was a guest on one of these bigfoot shows. And of course you know that that would not be good, because they would probably counter that with some doctor who would say that you are being truthful, you really think you saw bigfoot, but he would come up with some logical explanation for what really happened, such as hallucination, or other phenomenon.

You are in a difficult position, because you are saying that those who claim to support the science of Bigfoot do not represent you, and those who represent the science of Neurological disorders do not know what they are talking about, and those who think bigfoot is out there, and go out to study it do not represent you, because you just go along to enjoy the scenery, you are kind of a loner, unattached to any mainstream bigfoot school of thought. So really, no one could represent you instead of Don Keating.

[WGBH]

WGBH-

Are you saying that Meldrum is the voice of mainstream Bigfootry, but you are not part of mainstream bigfootry?

Does anyone out there represent people who think they saw Bigfoot, and is haunted by the sighting? Or do you claim to be represented by noone except yourself? If so, then you would not be happy unless you yourself was a guest on one of these bigfoot shows. And of course you know that that would not be good, because they would probably counter that with some doctor who would say that you are being truthful, you really think you saw bigfoot, but he would come up with some logical explanation for what really happened, such as hallucination, or other phenomenon.

You are in a difficult position, because you are saying that those who claim to support the science of Bigfoot do not represent you, and those who represent the science of Neurological disorders do not know what they are talking about, and those who think bigfoot is out there, and go out to study it do not represent you, because you just go along to enjoy the scenery, you are kind of a loner, unattached to any mainstream bigfoot school of thought. So really, no one could represent you instead of Don Keating.

Are you saying that Meldrum is the voice of mainstream Bigfootry, but you are not part of mainstream bigfootry?

Does anyone out there represent people who think they saw Bigfoot, and is haunted by the sighting? Or do you claim to be represented by noone except yourself? If so, then you would not be happy unless you yourself was a guest on one of these bigfoot shows. And of course you know that that would not be good, because they would probably counter that with some doctor who would say that you are being truthful, you really think you saw bigfoot, but he would come up with some logical explanation for what really happened, such as hallucination, or other phenomenon.

See my thoughts below on who represents me. I would not be happy on one of these Bigfoot TV shows. In fact at this time I am facing a delema about if I want to do a show to support a friend. I probably will do it, but it is not something I aspire to do.

You are in a difficult position, because you are saying that those who claim to support the science of Bigfoot do not represent you,

Who says I subscribe to the scientific theories they present? Some I do and some I do not.


and those who represent the science of Neurological disorders do not know what they are talking about,

Where is this coming from and what does it have to do with this?

and those who think bigfoot is out there, and go out to study it

How can you study something that cannot even be located?


do not represent you,

The people who run the 4 groups I am affiliated with can represent me. I have chosen to be in these groups and If I disagree with something I can voice my opinion, or leave.

because you just go along to enjoy the scenery,

I have only been going in the field since May 2008. I had absolutely NO experience in the woods before that, EXCEPT for my encounter. I contribute when I can, and to the best of my ability. At this time I am still following along and learning. The person who gets stuck with me in the woods is a babysitter. I am grateful to be invited to learn.


you are kind of a loner, unattached to any mainstream bigfoot school of thought.

Not really, the people I research with have the same school of thought.


So really, no one could represent you instead of Don Keating.

You lost me here. Don has always been nice to me. I have been in the field with him, but I am not a member of his organization so he does not really represent me.

[William Parcher]

John, did you feel any personal responsibility of warning the residents who live around the Great Dismal Swamp after you saw the hairy and savage behemoth? Obviously the local governments were not aware or doing anything to protect the people from what was clearly a potentially deadly threat. Did you basically say to yourself that you did not give a damn about those people? Was it happy-go-lucky arrogant youthfulness that caused you to be uncaring and callous towards others which would even include children? Do you carry any shame of that silence?

[CreatureSeeker]

John, did you feel any personal responsibility of warning the residents who live around the Great Dismal Swamp after you saw the hairy and savage behemoth? Obviously the local governments were not aware or doing anything to protect the people from what was clearly a potentially deadly threat. Did you basically say to yourself that you did not give a damn about those people? Was it happy-go-lucky arrogant youthfulness that caused you to be uncaring and callous towards others which would even include children? Do you carry any shame of that silence?

William,

Your characterization of bigfoot as a "savage" beast who is "clearly a potentially deadly threat" is interesting since WGBH never said that in any of his posts. I can only assume that you've had your own bigfoot encounter. LOL! IF you would be so kind as to share your experiences with the group.....

[kitakaze]

William,

Your characterization of bigfoot as a "savage" beast who is "clearly a potentially deadly threat" is interesting since WGBH never said that in any of his posts. I can only assume that you've had your own bigfoot encounter. LOL! IF you would be so kind as to share your experiences with the group.....

You mean Bigfoot has never been described as violent or aggressive and should not be considered a potential threat? Yes, kids. You can play by the river and do not mind the giant apemen...

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/A001235.jpg

Check out this three-toed monster Bigfoot with claws (http://www.gcbro.com/NCcabar0001.html) in North Carolina. Say goodbye to Farfel.

[WGBH]

Those are some weird looking Bigfoot.

[CreatureSeeker]

You mean Bigfoot has never been described as violent or aggressive and should not be considered a potential threat? Yes, kids. You can play by the river and do not mind the giant apemen...



Check out this three-toed monster Bigfoot with claws (http://www.gcbro.com/NCcabar0001.html) in North Carolina. Say goodbye to Farfel.

If you get your facts from cartoons, then I can totally understand your apprehension.

[kitakaze]

John, did you feel any personal responsibility of warning the residents who live around the Great Dismal Swamp after you saw the hairy and savage behemoth? Obviously the local governments were not aware or doing anything to protect the people from what was clearly a potentially deadly threat. Did you basically say to yourself that you did not give a damn about those people? Was it happy-go-lucky arrogant youthfulness that caused you to be uncaring and callous towards others which would even include children? Do you carry any shame of that silence?

I think John had a reaction of such unholy terror to the Bigfoot because he could sense the malice. The brooding me-want-eat-your-face rage burning behind those crazy wildman eyes. How many people have gone missing in the backwoods of North Carolina and Virginia? How many faces of innocents has Bigfoot eaten and we have no idea? How many dogs have had their heads torn off by the Boss of the Woods?

Won't somebody please think about the children?

[CreatureSeeker]

I think John had a reaction of such unholy terror to the Bigfoot because he could sense the malice. The brooding me-want-eat-your-face rage burning behind those crazy wildman eyes. How many people have gone missing in the backwoods of North Carolina and Virginia? How many faces of innocents has Bigfoot eaten and we have no idea? How many dogs have had their heads torn off by the Boss of the Woods?

Won't somebody please think about the children?

Or maybe it was because he was just a teenager in the woods alone for the first time...

[WGBH]

I think John had a reaction of such unholy terror to the Bigfoot because he could sense the malice. The brooding me-want-eat-your-face rage burning behind those crazy wildman eyes. How many people have gone missing in the backwoods of North Carolina and Virginia? How many faces of innocents has Bigfoot eaten and we have no idea? How many dogs have had their heads torn off by the Boss of the Woods?

Won't somebody please think about the children?

:D

[kitakaze]

If you get your facts from cartoons, then I can totally understand your apprehension.

I have a simple question. Let's try it again. Has Bigfoot never been reported showing violent or aggressive behavior?

I'm not sure to which cartoon you refer, but it would seem that you've dismissed reports of Bigfoot aggression. Why is that? How did you as a self-described Bigfoot skeptic come to establish that Bigfoot is not a potential threat to one's personal safety if encountered?

[CreatureSeeker]

I have a simple question. Let's try it again. Has Bigfoot never been reported showing violent or aggressive behavior?

I'm not sure to which cartoon you refer, but it would seem that you've dismissed reports of Bigfoot aggression. Why is that? How did you as a self-described Bigfoot skeptic come to establish that Bigfoot is not a potential threat to one's personal safety if encountered?

If I believed bigfoot existed, why *would* I think it posed a danger?

[kitakaze]

Or maybe it was because he was just a teenager in the woods alone for the first time...

Or maybe it was the me-want-eat-your-face. We'll never know. John stayed up in a tree and didn't present his head for consumption by the giant wild thing. Smart boy. But how many have not come back, Bruce? How many have come face to face with The Boss, only for oops, Bigfoot ate my face?

[kitakaze]

If I believed bigfoot existed, why *would* I think it posed a danger?

:boggled:

Hint: first question.

[CreatureSeeker]

Or maybe it was the me-want-eat-your-face. We'll never know. John stayed up in a tree and didn't present his head for consumption by the giant wild thing. Smart boy. But how many have not come back, Bruce? How many have come face to face with The Boss, only for oops, Bigfoot ate my face?

Kitakaze, it seems that you are trying to make the argument that bigfoot is dangerous, and is responsible for the disappearance of countless human beings?

I'm afraid there isn't enough evidence to support your arguments.

[kitakaze]

Kitakaze, it seems that you are trying to make the argument that bigfoot is dangerous, and is responsible for the disappearance of countless human beings?

I'm afraid there isn't enough evidence to support your arguments.

Uh-oh, duck...

:id:

Did that just come from the guy that was on the TV pushing the classic footer foo foo about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

I'm saying that if Bigfoot does exist and many of the reports are true, there is good reason to consider that creature a potential threat. One that any responsible government wildlife agency should act on.

The same evidence that is used to support the existence of Bigfoot also indicates an animal that has been violent, aggressive, or threatening to humans. Throwing crap at us, messing up our dogs, taking people out with infrablasts, taking people out all together - there are oodles of reports of this.

Let's keep it simple...

1) Do you think Bigfoot exists? Yes or no.

2) If yes, is it safe to assume, regardless of reports to the contrary, that Bigfoot is completely benign and poses no threat to humans? If so, what knowledge do you base this opinion on?

[RayG]

That's the great thing about footing, you can make stuff up as you go along and nobody can refute or confirm it.

RayG

[CreatureSeeker]

Let's keep it simple...

1) Do you think Bigfoot exists? Yes or no.

inconclusive


2) If yes, is it safe to assume, regardless of reports to the contrary, that Bigfoot is completely benign and poses no threat to humans? If so, what knowledge do you base this opinion on?

Since there is no type specimen, one can not say whether these creatures, if they do exist, are dangerous.

is that simple enough?

[CreatureSeeker]

That's the great thing about footing, you can make stuff up as you go along and nobody can refute or confirm it.

RayG

yes, that's true. the evidence for the existence of these creatures is inconclusive.

[William Parcher]

If Bigfoot exists, then you can pretty much be assured that it has killed or injured people. If not, then it would be the only large NA mammal that has not done this. Even strict herbivores like deer, elk, etc have done serious harm to people. A 9-foot ape thing is going to do damage from time to time, especially when defending offspring.

In the encounter that John described, he feels that the Bigfoot didn't know he was there in the deer stand. Yet in spite of this John was overcome with nausea and electric jolt pains through his internal organs. It sent him to the floor uncontrollably. Another person may have gone into cardiac arrest or shock. That's the danger of Bigfoot when they aren't even trying to hurt a person. Now imagine an encounter like that in mountainous terrain. Collapsing to the ground could cause a person to tumble to their death. It would certainly put them at the mercy of the giant ape creature because the ability to flee is lost. John has recalled his experience in those kinds of terms.

His encounter story gives good indication that Bigfoot is very dangerous. It was pretty stupid for him not to contact the police or rangers. I'm hopeful that there are not many people out there with such an underdeveloped sense of caring as John displayed back in 1982.

[kitakaze]

inconclusive

Since there is no type specimen, one can not say whether these creatures, if they do exist, are dangerous.

is that simple enough?

So what you are then saying is that while Bigfoot's existence has not been proven, there is good reason to think it may exist. Also, we do not have a living sasquatch to observe and therefore can not rule out that the reports of aggression and violence towards humans and human pets and livestock are not in fact accurate accounts of the animal's behaviour.

Oops for you. That didn't quite turn out the way you might have liked.

Yeah, that's simple enough. Currently, available evidence indicates that Bigfoot is a myth and functions just as we would expect for a social construct. However, if we lower our standards of evidence, we can pass off amorphous gobbledy-gook about the likelihood of the existence of Bigfoots, aliens, and dinosaurs.

"Inconclusive" - the crack of fortean addiction.

[CreatureSeeker]

If Bigfoot exists, then you can pretty much be assured that it has killed or injured people. If not, then it would be the only large NA mammal that has not done this. Even strict herbivores like deer, elk, etc have done serious harm to people. A 9-foot ape thing is going to do damage from time to time, especially when defending offspring.


Pure supposition on your part, but you are entitled to your *opinions*.


In the encounter that John described, he feels that the Bigfoot didn't know he was there in the deer stand. Yet in spite of this John was overcome with nausea and electric jolt pains through his internal organs. It sent him to the floor uncontrollably. Another person may have gone into cardiac arrest or shock. That's the danger of Bigfoot when they aren't even trying to hurt a person. Now imagine an encounter like that in mountainous terrain. Collapsing to the ground could cause a person to tumble to their death. It would certainly put them at the mercy of the giant ape creature because the ability to flee is lost. John has recalled his experience in those kinds of terms.


You are assuming that WGBH's reaction has some causality with his sighting. We don't know if that was the case.


His encounter story gives good indication that Bigfoot is very dangerous. It was pretty stupid for him not to contact the police or rangers. I'm hopeful that there are not many people out there with such an underdeveloped sense of caring as John displayed back in 1982.

Your conclusions about the "danger threat" posed by a "bigfoot" does not logically follow. There has been no causality established between WGBH's reaction and his sighting.

[kitakaze]

His encounter story gives good indication that Bigfoot is very dangerous. It was pretty stupid for him not to contact the police or rangers. I'm hopeful that there are not many people out there with such an underdeveloped sense of caring as John displayed back in 1982.

I often hike in areas of bear and cougar activity. The expected etiqutte for hikers and other outdoors enthusiasts is to place a written notice in a prominent area, such as a parking area, of when and where a bear or cougar was sighted. It's a part of the whole let's-not-get-eaten culture.

Mama bear with cubs seen on east side of lake Tuseday, December 20th at about 2pm. Be on alert.

Around the Pasquotank River area, there should be signs up...

Bigfoots in area. Do not hike alone. Infrablast kits advised.

The American and Canadian goverments make efforts to protect their respective citizens from the dangers of bears, wolves, cougars, moose, etc. Why do they not address the issue of one of the biggest animals with a greater range than any other of those animals?

[CreatureSeeker]

So what you are then saying is that while Bigfoot's existence has not been proven, there is good reason to think it may exist. Also, we do not have a living sasquatch to observe and therefore can not rule out that the reports of aggression and violence towards humans and human pets and livestock are not in fact accurate accounts of the animal's behaviour.

Oops for you. That didn't quite turn out the way you might have liked.


Nice try. those are *your* words, not mine. My words were that we neither have a type specimen nor conclusive evidence about the behavior of any bipedal primate thought to inhabit North America.


Yeah, that's simple enough. Currently, available evidence indicates that Bigfoot is a myth and functions just as we would expect for a social construct. However, if we lower our standards of evidence, we can pass off amorphous gobbledy-gook about the likelihood of the existence of Bigfoots, aliens, and dinosaurs.

"Inconclusive" - the crack of fortean addiction.

If that's your convoluted way of saying that the evidence is inconclusive, I agree.

[CreatureSeeker]

I often hike in areas of bear and cougar activity. The expected etiqutte for hikers and other outdoors enthusiasts is to place a written notice in a prominent area, such as a parking area, of when and where a bear or cougar was sighted. It's a part of the whole let's-not-get-eaten culture.

Mama bear with cubs seen on east side of lake Tuseday, December 20th at about 2pm. Be on alert.

Around the Pasquotank River area, there should be signs up...

Bigfoots in area. Do not hike alone. Infrablast kits advised.

The American and Canadian goverments make efforts to protect their respective citizens from the dangers of bears, wolves, cougars, moose, etc. Why do they not address the issue of one of the biggest animals with a greater range tthan any other of those animals?

LOL! The Park Service is now busily making up signs for hikers. "DO NOT FEED UNICORNS"

[kitakaze]

Nice try. those are *your* words, not mine. My words were that we neither have a type specimen nor conclusive evidence about the behavior of any bipedal primate thought to inhabit North America.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is there no good reason to think Bigfoot might exist? Is that what you are saying? I mean, there's a good reason to think Bigfoot might be real or not. Are we talking inconclusive like cougars in extirpated areas or inconclusive like dogmen? Which is it, Bruce? We have neither a type specimen nor conclusive evidence for dogmen in North America, and yet people keep claiming to see them. We have video and tracks and everything. Is it more reasonable to suppose that Bigfoot exists than it is for dogmen or what?

You apparently do think there is a good reason to think Bigfoot might exist. Enough so to join Bigfoot groups, conferences, and expeditions.

[kitakaze]

LOL! The Park Service is now busily making up signs for hikers. "DO NOT FEED UNICORNS"

The evidence for the existence of these creatures is inconclusive. It could have come from encounters with elasmotheriums. There are sightings and evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Unicorn Evidence (http://einhornpress.com/evidence.aspx)

Unicorn = inconclusive.

[CreatureSeeker]

You apparently do think there is a good reason to think Bigfoot might exist. Enough so to join Bigfoot groups, conferences, and expeditions.

Once again, the logic of your arguments does not follow. You and your fellow scoftics think that looking for answers is synonymous with believing. LOL!

[CreatureSeeker]

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...


I totally agree.

[kitakaze]

Pure supposition on your part, but you are entitled to your *opinions*.

Large animals being dangerous is purely supposition? That's nice. That's some really good critical thinking you have going there. I know every other large mammal in North America has caused bodily injury to humans. I know apes attack people from time to time, often horribly. I know the most deadly animal in North America is the deer. Treating one large animal with the same caution as for every other large animal is baseless supposition. Good one.

You are assuming that WGBH's reaction has some causality with his sighting. We don't know if that was the case.

Your conclusions about the "danger threat" posed by a "bigfoot" does not logically follow. There has been no causality established between WGBH's reaction and his sighting.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It highly suspicious the timing of events. Although known and proven phenomena points to nothing actually having been there at all, many people have related similar encounters with Bigfoot as John. Other footers talk to John about being blasted. If the reports of John and those similar are true, it would seem to indicate Bigfoots can take us down in such manner. John himself was showing us animals that use infrasound like elephants, etc.

It is absolutely logical to expect that of Bigfoot is real and lives all over North America, it is a major wildlife and safety concern.

[RayG]

Since there is no type specimen, one can not say whether these creatures, if they do exist, are dangerous.

If bigfoot exists, you're romanticizing him. Timothy Treadwell thought the bears he lived amongst were harmless and look what happened to him.

Anyone that claims any large wild animal is harmless is a fool, plain and simple.

Chimps are far smaller than a purported bigfoot. Do you think chimps pose no threat to life and limb? This guy found out first hand.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2324b3056cd98d8e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18526)

RayG

[kitakaze]

Once again, the logic of your arguments does not follow. You and your fellow scoftics think that looking for answers is synonymous with believing. LOL!

I think it is you that is having the logic fail. I never said that going out and looking for Bigfoot categorically equates 100% belief that they are there to be found. You could look for unicorns, as well, and have no expectation to find anything. But why would you do that?

What I am saying is that when one spends significant time and resources looking for evidence of Bigfoot, it is reasonable to expect that the person thinks there is at least some significant chance of finding it. I am saying that Bruce of Sasquatch Watch places significant credibility into the possibility of Bigfoot being real.

You say you are a skeptic, but you are not any kind of skeptic at all. Skeptics do not waffle and hide behind words like "inconclusive" to conceal their credulity.

[kitakaze]

Chimps are far smaller than a purported bigfoot. Do you think chimps pose no threat to life and limb? This guy found out first hand.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2324b3056cd98d8e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18526)

RayG

That would be the horribly I was mentioning. That was the guy in California, right? Didn't the chimps try and tear his nuts off and gnaw his foot off at the ankle? Mmm... delicious. Chimps are cute and playful and HFS, the monkey is eating my face!

If Bigfoots were real and living across North America, at many points in our history we would have horrible incidences of when good Bigfoots go bad and get ape shizzle on somebody. Bigfoot tore my arm off and rained blows upon me with it while I geysered a fountain blood everywhere. That would not be a surprise. Bear ate me up, chimp tore my junk off, Bigfoot beat me with my severed arm. These things happen in Wild America.

[kitakaze]

I totally agree.
Very good. Now how about the bolded part in reference to the unicorns?

LOL! The Park Service is now busily making up signs for hikers. "DO NOT FEED UNICORNS"The evidence for the existence of these creatures is inconclusive. It could have come from encounters with elasmotheriums. There are sightings and evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Unicorn Evidence (http://einhornpress.com/evidence.aspx)

Unicorn = inconclusive.

[HarryHenderson]

That would be the horribly I was mentioning. That was the guy in California, right? Didn't the chimps try and tear his nuts off and gnaw his foot off at the ankle? Mmm... delicious. Chimps are cute and playful and HFS, the monkey is eating my face!

If Bigfoots were real and living across North America, at many points in our history we would have horrible incidences of when good Bigfoots go bad and get ape shizzle on somebody. Bigfoot tore my arm off and rained blows upon me with it while I geysered a fountain blood everywhere. That would not be a surprise. Bear ate me up, chimp tore my junk off, Bigfoot beat me with my severed arm. These things happen in Wild America.
:D That's so ******* funny!

[Correa Neto]

I think John had a reaction of such unholy terror to the Bigfoot because he could sense the malice. The brooding me-want-eat-your-face rage burning behind those crazy wildman eyes. How many people have gone missing in the backwoods of North Carolina and Virginia? How many faces of innocents has Bigfoot eaten and we have no idea? How many dogs have had their heads torn off by the Boss of the Woods?

Won't somebody please think about the children?
The poor pigs! The poor pigs!
Don't forget the poor pigs!
Oh, the horror of being tossed away by a bigfoot!
Not to mention the garlic breath...

[Drewbot]

Creature Seeker- do sighting reports carry any weight regarding the idea that Bigfoot exists?

If we are to include sighting reports as evidence of Bigfoot's existence...

I shudder to think what would have happened to Albert Ostman had he not been fortunate enough to be kidnapped by a Bigfoot Jonesin-for-some-Nicotine.

He was probably about to be broiled with fava beans, and Juniper Liqueur.

There was some sentiment at BFF for a while that the Mt. Hood hikers were stolen by BF.

Also, if we assume BF, like bears, needs 10,000+ calories/day, and in the fall, must increase this, to prepare for winter, would not a human, provide an easily delivered boost to that calorie count? Seriously, a human would be much easier to catch than a whitetail deer, or a wild hog. Also, a human would probably crumple with fear as the beast chased it down, allowing the creature to remove his nutritious liver without risk of an ankle sprain, or having to toss the hog against a tree to incapacitate it.

Or perhaps we are to assume that this boss of the woods is empathetic with humans, does not consider them prey, and actually protects us from afar when we are trundling through his domain. Which of course brings us to the Oklahoma boys, and the pedophile, Driver operator said the beast jumped on his truck bed, and stole his propane tanks, (not something a peaceful beast would do, especially if the propane was used to keep the human's home warm in the winter), and the pedophile who claimed he was molested by Bigfoot in defense of his charge. This is henceforth to be referred to as "The Molested-By-Bigfoot Defense"

[Spektator]

Creature Seeker- do sighting reports carry any weight regarding the idea that Bigfoot exists?

If we are to include sighting reports as evidence of Bigfoot's existence...

I shudder to think what would have happened to Albert Ostman had he not been fortunate enough to be kidnapped by a Bigfoot Jonesin-for-some-Nicotine.
(snip)

And let's not forget the passage in Theodore Roosevelt's The Wilderness Hunter that relays an account by a man named Bauman of a creature that horrifically mauled and killed Bauman's partner. Bigfoot enthusiasts insist that must have been a bigfoot attack.

Though some of us are not convinced of that.....

[kitakaze]

The poor pigs! The poor pigs!
Don't forget the poor pigs!
Oh, the horror of being tossed away by a bigfoot!
Not to mention the garlic breath...

Great moments in JREF Bigfoot fun...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649c17845d6c54.jpg

[Drewbot]

GIGANTOFOOTIKUSS Caber tossing Matt Moneymaker?

[kitakaze]

One-handed, even.

[WGBH]

:D

[Óðinn]

They've become face biters from too much inbreeding.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_195034b30fb8186b0b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18533)

[WGBH]

:D

[RayG]

And let's not forget the passage in Theodore Roosevelt's The Wilderness Hunter that relays an account by a man named Bauman of a creature that horrifically mauled and killed Bauman's partner. Bigfoot enthusiasts insist that must have been a bigfoot attack.

Though some of us are not convinced of that.....

No? Well, Mr. Smarty Pants, what other animal would sneak up behind you, rip yer head off, and than dance about in glee?

RayG

[HarryHenderson]

...There was some sentiment at BFF for a while that the Mt. Hood hikers were stolen by BF...
Was that in the Humor sub-forum? Oh wait that's right, they don't have a Humor sub-forum. Now see kids, this is what...

[William Parcher]

Two years ago in this forum "manofthesea" was asking about missing Mt. Hood climbers (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42523&page=197) with the strong concerned question that Bigfoot was interlaced with the doings.


I really don't want to offend the families involved, but what exactly happened to the three mountaineers on Mt. Hood last year? Didn't one of them make a call from near summit? From what I recall, the one victim that was found nearly did have his arm torn off...

(It's not like on CSI) If you're unaware of the events as the tragedy unfolded, that is fine. The line that the two missing climbers rapelled on was cut. There were footprints leading away from the snow cave. I wanted to know if the distress call was taped...

The events as they unfolded, stated that the sheriff found their rope appeared to have been cut, and he couldn't make sense of the tracks surrounding the snowcave. It's that simple. My question was if the PHONE CALL WAS RECORDED OR NOT?...

So, was the distress call taped?...

I've had a couple of (Bigfoot) encounters when I was a kid...

I followed the news reports a little closer, and these interesting little tidbits kept coming up, and stayed on my mind. Like a rappelling rope that was cut, mysterious footprint tracks, missing climbers (still), etc. etc....

If bigfoot is hominid, he may carry a blade. Would it be beyond them to learn how to operate a knife. Maybe the big hairy dummy bit it. CBS was providing quotes from various experts dealing with this tragedy. Either mountain rescue specialists, the law, etc. They didn't mention any theory as to who may have cut the rope...

[kitakaze]

They've become face biters from too much inbreeding.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_195034b30fb8186b0b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18533)

That could not have been done better. :D

Abominable was terrible, BTW. And what was with the whole Jimmy Stewart/Rear Window biting? That move bit a lot of things, not just faces.

[WGBH]

Happy Holidays Everyone.

[xblade]

I think I had a bigfoot encounter the other night. It was a little after midnight, and I had stepped outside for a little fresh air. After about 5 minutes, I began to feel a little woozy, followed by severe nausea. I tried to maintain my composure, but I couldn't. Next thing I know I'm projectile vomiting into the bushes. After I finished spewing my dinner onto the ground, I noticed a nasty smell in the air. I looked around but saw nothing unusual, so I didn't think anything of it. After another 5 minutes or so, I started to feel a little better, and went back inside the club for another drink. I wasn't going to let a little upchucking ruin my New Year's Eve. At the time this happened, I just assumed it was the alcohol, but now that I've had a little time to process the event, I'm pretty sure it was bigfoot. What else could it have been?

[learner]

I think I had a bigfoot encounter the other night. It was a little after midnight, and I had stepped outside for a little fresh air. After about 5 minutes, I began to feel a little woozy, followed by severe nausea. I tried to maintain my composure, but I couldn't. Next thing I know I'm projectile vomiting into the bushes. After I finished spewing my dinner onto the ground, I noticed a nasty smell in the air. I looked around but saw nothing unusual, so I didn't think anything of it. After another 5 minutes or so, I started to feel a little better, and went back inside the club for another drink. I wasn't going to let a little upchucking ruin my New Year's Eve. At the time this happened, I just assumed it was the alcohol, but now that I've had a little time to process the event, I'm pretty sure it was bigfoot. What else could it have been?

I cant believe it, Thats what happened to me, one scary night last march! Ive kept it quiet until now. Knowing you are not alone is such a relief.

I think a support group is in order.

The physical condition that overcame you is uncannily similar to mine. Now I know Im not going mad :eye-poppi

Thank you, Thank you!

I am going to the very same place tonight for some pints of Ale. Could be a good chance for confirmaton of this phenomenomenom.

I will keep notes ( I wont take pics. I shake when I drink) and report back.

[rockinkt]

<snip>
What else could it have been?

Most likely it was incredible immaturity, stupidity, or lack of social skills that drives one to overindulge in alcohol to the point of poisoning themselves? :)

[HumanityBlues]

You know what animal really looks like bigfoot? A grizzly bear.

You do the math!:D

[WGBH]

You know what animal really looks like bigfoot? A grizzly bear.

You do the math!:D

Grizzly bear looks like Bigfoot? :rolleyes:

[GT/CS]

You know what animal really looks like bigfoot? A grizzly bear.

You do the math!:D

True, but most of the sightings are not in grizzly habitat so the math doesn't work.

[William Parcher]

I once saw a sockpuppet that looked like a Bigfoot and a grizzly bear.

[isaone]

Bigfoots are really amazing . The amazing thing is that there are still people so gullible ou there that they believe in them.

[WGBH]

Bigfoots are really amazing . The amazing thing is that there are still people so gullible ou there that they believe in them.

Yeah it boggles the mind. :rolleyes:

[William Parcher]

Anybody seen one in southern Colorado?

Awards - September 2004
Jeff Meldrum was awarded a grant in the amount of $23,000 for Field investigation of Sasquatch in southern Colorado, by Fidelity Investments (with University Research Committee match).

[HarryHenderson]

Anybody seen one in southern Colorado?
Probably. Some of the most beautiful countryside in the world is in southern CO, why not Bigfoot too?! Given the 'cosmic truth' of it all, the real question becomes does it really matter where he looks? ;)

[Locknar]

Speaking of seeing a Bigfoot (or is that Bigfeet?); from yesterdays AP news:
JAFFREY, N.H. (AP) - A New Hampshire artist and videographer who dressed as Bigfoot in a state park says his rights were trampled by big government.

<snip>

He says he and others with him, some also in costume, were on a lesser-used trail and weren't bothering other park visitors.


The story can be found here (http://wtop.com/?nid=456&sid=1856403).

[LTC8K6]

http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/01/04/news/local/free/id_384925.txt

The original story has a bit more info.

[HarryHenderson]

Given the rampant lies, lies and more lies that permeate every corner of present-day Bigfootdom, well that and the fact he films it, at least this guy has the common decency to not 'act' like Bigfoot (bringing along his 'pirate friends' is the giveaway) and throw into confusion people like Sweaty. I mean, for a certain portion of the Bigfoot Buying™ public, and whether it's in videos or photos or whatever, anything that just resembles 'the idea of Bigfoot' is presumed to be the 'real deal' until further notice.

"Wait, crap, what's that? Cripes, it's his little pirate friends. Damnit. Hoax!"

[RayG]

http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/01/04/news/local/free/id_384925.txt

The original story has a bit more info.

This one (http://weeklyworldnews.com/mutants/14886/jonathan-doyle/) has a pic of him in costume (I'm assuming it's him anyway)

RayG

[LTC8K6]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-nh/

Video and more info at Cryptomundo.

[HarryHenderson]

Okay fine, Bigfoot eatin' the guy's head would have also exposed the massive-hoax-operation they had going on. There on Mount Monadnocknockwhostherebigfootbigfootwhothereisnobi ...

[Drewbot]

I jotted down five things that must be overcome, if someone is to believe in Bigfoot.

1. Bigfoot is a HUGE, GIGANTIC, (Most claim 8-9 feet tall) Beast, yet it is still not classified.

2. Bigfoot is elusive, yet howls/screams menacingly at researchers, week after week, year after year. Yet it is still not classified.
2A. The elusive Bigfoot chucks: Rocks, pinecones, dead voles at researchers, it bangs on trees within a few feet of researchers. Yet it is still not classified.
2B. The elusive Bigfoot walks on open hillsides in broad daylight, in front of 90+ onlookers, it casually strolls away, while armed horseback riders approach it. Yet it is still not classified.

3. Bigfoot lives in places such as; Salt Fork State Park, the Swampy peripherals of Florida, The semi-rural farm fields of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the highway rest-areas of Washington, and the suburban driveways/fields of New Jersey, Yet it is still not classified.

4. Many Bigfoot hair and fecal samples have been gathered by researchers, with accompanying reports of their authenticity, Yet it is still not classified.

5. Many perfectly sane, non-medicated, non-lying, non-hoaxing individuals have reported sightings, with each report being investigated by a competent, relevently trained expert, Yet it is still not classified.

Please add more if you can.

[JcR]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b4a57df5ec4c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18665)

I'll be back a few pages...Reading, catching up. :)

[atpeace]

I jotted down five things that must be overcome, if someone is to believe in Bigfoot.

1. Bigfoot is a HUGE, GIGANTIC, (Most claim 8-9 feet tall) Beast, yet it is still not classified.

2. Bigfoot is elusive, yet howls/screams menacingly at researchers, week after week, year after year. Yet it is still not classified.
2A. The elusive Bigfoot chucks: Rocks, pinecones, dead voles at researchers, it bangs on trees within a few feet of researchers. Yet it is still not classified.
2B. The elusive Bigfoot walks on open hillsides in broad daylight, in front of 90+ onlookers, it casually strolls away, while armed horseback riders approach it. Yet it is still not classified.

3. Bigfoot lives in places such as; Salt Fork State Park, the Swampy peripherals of Florida, The semi-rural farm fields of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, the highway rest-areas of Washington, and the suburban driveways/fields of New Jersey, Yet it is still not classified.

4. Many Bigfoot hair and fecal samples have been gathered by researchers, with accompanying reports of their authenticity, Yet it is still not classified.

5. Many perfectly sane, non-medicated, non-lying, non-hoaxing individuals have reported sightings, with each report being investigated by a competent, relevently trained expert, Yet it is still not classified.

Please add more if you can.
6. The habituated Bigfoot that researches feed, shoot the breeze with and scratch under the chin. Yet it is still not classified.

ap

[Vortigern99]

7. Bigfoot is comparable in body mass to a black bear, and thus requires some 9000+ calories a day to survive, calories which are not available in winter months in most US states without raiding trash bins, camp sites and homes. Yet it is still not classified.

[Drewbot]

8. Every large game animal, can be tracked, and hunted using the wind, spoor, and/or dogs. Elusive animals such as Dall Sheep, pronghorn Antelope, Elephants, Lions, Leopards, Bushbuck, Kudu, mountain lions, bobcat, are all able to be tracked and hunted successfully, yet Bigfoot is still not classified.

[desertyeti]

My one and only post for 2010:

9. Owing to it's huge size and prodigeous food requirements, BF must be pooping all over the place, in tremendous volume, yet it isn't classified.

10. Living in areas of heavy agriculture, and needing lots of food, BF should be raiding orchards, fields, and farms with alarming frequency, getting shot regularly, and winding up dead on many occasions, yet...yep...you guessed it...

And that's all for me for 2010.
I'll check in some time in 2011 to see if it's been found and...classified...but until then, back to lurking for me...

[atpeace]

11. The number of research groups, outings, individuals actively searching for this animal compared to the manpower afforded the study of any other animal. Yet still it has not been classified.

[atpeace]

12. The (almost) absolute total lack of pursuit of this creature by the scientific community must speak to something, especially considering all the "evidence" Bigfootdom continually spews forth.

[EHocking]

13. Amateur photographers across the globe are able to take clear, unambiguous photographs of wildlife, some rare or hard to find, yet Footers can only shoot blurry blobs in the middle distance.

[atpeace]

No, but I see how it is possible to smell one.
Due to feeling a little adventurous, I recently found myself sitting in a hunting blind, alone, in the middle of thick woods on a very dark morning (armed with a camera not a gun). I couldn’t see my hand in front of my face. Anyway, I had also watched a certain popular paranormal movie the previous evening. But even after all the hoopla, I still didn’t find it scary. However, sitting alone, in the pitch black woods, I know the movie played into the creepy feelings that were giving me the willies. As I sat there, I began to smell a wretched odor. It kept getting stronger and I’m sure my heightened senses at the time and the fact I couldn’t see only hear and smell, helped me hone in on it as well. I thought this smells like a wet dog x10 (an oft mentioned description of Bf eau du toilette), nasty. So, of course, Bigfoot came to mind and I figured it would be poetic justice to meet my demise at his hand. As the smell got worse I strained to hear something , anything, but there was nothing. To my heart’s great relief the stench finally began to dissipate. And then I heard the source. A pack of coyotes howling up the hill close behind me. They had silently crossed the creek near me (thus wet dog x10 odor) and crept right by me without making a sound. I was situated on a game trail. I recently read somewhere that there are possibly up to 2000 coyotes living in urban Chicago. They’re everywhere. Silent but deadly :D
ap

[Vortigern99]

Atpeace, that's very interesting. I wonder how many wet-dog stinks attributed to BF by the credulous were actually coyotes moving unseen and/or unheard through the underbrush? All of them? Some, with olfactory hallucination and the ubiquitous "swamp gas" explaining the rest?

WHBH, is it possible the stink you experienced was in fact a pack of otherwise unnoticeable coyotes?

[atpeace]

Sure Vort, that is what I thought too.
Since a lot of reports are only smell and the feeling of being watched, not sight or sound. It is certainly plausible in some cases. Some may not realize how stealthy and STINKY some animals can be and may assume it must be something super intelligent or whatever.
ap

[Spektator]

Bears are also incredibly stinky. I used to hike a lot, and on more than one occasion I've come within viewing and smelling distance of bears. They're at their worst in spring, when they're gaunt and ripe (I suppose) with all the aromas of the den. Truly memorable--so thick a stench you can almost see it quivering in the air.

[Bitter Monk]

Science has yet to determine if they can bring the noise, but bears, possums, yotes, coons, and even squirrels can all bring the funk.

[Drewbot]

Science has yet to determine if they can bring the noise, but bears, possums, yotes, coons, and even squirrels can all bring the funk.

And porcupines incidentally

[The Shrike]

And porcupines incidentally

From my days at the zoo when I walked past these guys several times a day, I would definitely describe it as intense human-like body odor with some cat lady litter box aroma mixed in.

[atpeace]

The sad part is if I'd just leave off the part about the coyotes and add a bit about "feeling like i was being watched" my experience would easily make it on to several BF encounter listings. With maybe even a little Bf expertize thrown in (by the site) to authenticate it. "I spoke in depth to this individual blahblahblah and I have no doubt she is sincere and had a BF encounter."

Wow, all from an odor? Real scientists really do stuff the hard way.

ap

[kitakaze]

This is mainly intended for WGBH/John Cartwright...

Here is a photo stream of a BFRO discussion board member's recent trip to the Great Dismal Swamp (http://drop.io/rcm944dismalswamp/media).

And here is a high detail Bing Mapping (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=q2z4zf8mx4hs&scene=32402996&lvl=2&sty=o) birdseye view of the area. You can actually look for Bigfoots in that, if you like.

Here's the BFRO thread...

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=124725&threadid=2151194

You couldn't pay me to get in that water...

[mikeyx]

This is mainly intended for WGBH/John Cartwright...

Here is a photo stream of a BFRO discussion board member's recent trip to the Great Dismal Swamp (http://drop.io/rcm944dismalswamp/media).

And here is a high detail Bing Mapping (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=q2z4zf8mx4hs&scene=32402996&lvl=2&sty=o) birdseye view of the area. You can actually look for Bigfoots in that, if you like.

Here's the BFRO thread...

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=124725&threadid=2151194

You couldn't pay me to get in that water...

has he ever claimed to be to the great dismal?

[kitakaze]

has he ever claimed to be to the great dismal?

Yes. He's mentioned going to the swamp here before. His sighting was supposed to have occured just south of the swamp in the Pasquotank River area. I thought John might appreciate a recent trip with pictures to the place by a fellow footer for his perusal.

[WGBH]

This is mainly intended for WGBH/John Cartwright...

Here is a photo stream of a BFRO discussion board member's recent trip to the Great Dismal Swamp (http://drop.io/rcm944dismalswamp/media).

And here is a high detail Bing Mapping (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=q2z4zf8mx4hs&scene=32402996&lvl=2&sty=o) birdseye view of the area. You can actually look for Bigfoots in that, if you like.

Here's the BFRO thread...

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=124725&threadid=2151194

You couldn't pay me to get in that water...

Thanks so much Kit. That was nice and I appreciate it.

[Bitter Monk]

You couldn't pay me to get in that water...

Dude...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_357324b514460dbfb5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18729)

[kitakaze]

Dude...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_357324b514460dbfb5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18729)

That's the stuff.

Mmmmm... disgusting. The one titled "foam not ice" was good, too. Clearly John really did see that behemo-foot, which was in fact just one of the locals not on bottled water.

Reminded me of that groddy scene in Robocop with the toxic waste dude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhT4CF0DEh0).

Warning: Groddy

[WGBH]

I agree its terrible. Keep in mind in 1982 there was not much there in the area at all. Look what humans have done in 27 years. We should also remember that the entire swamp area was plagued with fires as a result of lightning strikes for the entire summer in 2008. Could the water condition be a result of the fires? We could even see and smell the smoke here in Virginia Beach.

[William Parcher]

That color and foam is the result of tannins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_river) in the water. It isn't pollution per se, and it isn't dangerous. At the link you will see that many American rivers are "blackwater".

A blackwater river is a river with a deep, slow-moving channel that flows through forested swamps and wetlands. As vegetation decays in the water, tannins are leached out, resulting in transparent, acidic water that is darkly stained, resembling tea or coffee. Most major blackwater rivers are in the Amazon River system and the Southern United States.

[Bitter Monk]

I've only ever seen blackwater one time, and that was in Virgina. Being a lake we didn't see foam like that but the water looked like weak tea. Ironically enough the fish we caught out of that lake were some of the most vibrantly colored I've ever seen in my life.

[/threadjack]

[Spektator]

The Okefenokee is a blackwater swamp. Oddly, the tannin keeps the water pure--it inhibits bacteria. You can safely drink water straight from the swamp, despite the fact that fish and alligators, ah, function in it. In fact, some years ago when I spent two weeks training at Valdosta State University, the local newspaper warned people not to drink the Valdosta tap water because it was carcinogenic. We toured the swamp one weekend and learned that Okefenokee water is safer. Go figure.

[JcR]

I used to add tannins for my cichlids.

[mikeyx]

That color and foam is the result of tannins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_river) in the water. It isn't pollution per se, and it isn't dangerous. At the link you will see that many American rivers are "blackwater".

you make it sound like free flowing herbal tea

[Bitter Monk]

Reading up on it herbal tea is just about right. All the plant material steeping in the water till it's just right.

[kitakaze]

Thanks so much Kit. That was nice and I appreciate it.

You're welcome, John. It was my pleasure and I thought you'd like that. I was farting around on the BFRO page, went to the discussion board to check some posts about the "Great North Figure" and found the thread on the Great Dismal Swamp. I thought the Bing Mapping interactive birdseye view thing was particularly cool. I was assuming that to be taken from an aircraft.

I certainly wouldn't want to be poking around that area at night without a flashlight. How do you reckon Bigfoots get around in there without leaving evidence like hair and scat?

BTW, what would you consider the most compelling North Carolina sighting (obviously apart from yours, of course)?

[kitakaze]

That color and foam is the result of tannins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_river) in the water. It isn't pollution per se, and it isn't dangerous. At the link you will see that many American rivers are "blackwater".

Well, sir, I'm no fan of tannins. They make your mouth feel all furry and screw up your beer. And I don't care where the foam comes from, I'm not jumping in that water unless I have a bee sting or hemorrhoid...

Tannins are an important ingredient in the process of tanning leather. Oak bark has traditionally been the primary source of tannery tannin, though inorganic tanning agents are also in use today.[citation needed]

Tannins may be employed medicinally in antidiarrheal, hemostatic, and antihemorrhoidal compounds[citation needed]

The anti-inflammatory effect of tannins help control all indications of gastritis, esophagitis, enteritis, and irritating bowel disorders. Diarrhea is also treated with an effective astringent medicine that does not stop the flow of the disturbing substance in the stomach; rather, it controls the irritation in the small intestine.[citation needed]

Tannins not only heal burns and stop bleeding, but they also stop infection while they continue to heal the wound internally. The ability of tannins to form a protective layer over the exposed tissue keeps the wound from being infected even more. Tannins are also beneficial when applied to the mucosal lining of the mouth.[citation needed]

Tannins can also be effective in protecting the kidneys. Tannins have been used for immediate relief of sore throats, diarrhea, dysentery, hemorrhaging, fatigue, skin ulcers and as a cicatrizant on gangrenous wounds. Tannins can cause regression of tumors that are already present in tissue, but if used excessively over time, they can cause tumors in healthy tissue. Tannins are used indirectly as molluscicides to interrupt the transmission cycle of schistosomiasis. They have also been reported to have anti-viral effects. When incubated with red grape juice and red wines with a high content of condensed tannins, the poliovirus, herpes simplex virus, and various enteric viruses are inactivated.[36]

Tannins are sometimes used to treat poisons from poison oak or from bee stings, causing instant relief.[citation needed]

Tannins produce different colors with ferric chloride (either blue, blue black, or green to greenish black) according to the type of tannin. Iron gall ink is produced by treating a solution of tannins with iron(II) sulfate.[citation needed]

Tannin is a component in a type of industrial particleboard adhesive developed jointly by the Tanzania Industrial Research and Development Organization and Forintek Labs Canada.[

[WGBH]

Well, sir, I'm no fan of tannins. They make your mouth feel all furry and screw up your beer. And I don't care where the foam comes from, I'm not jumping in that water unless I have a bee sting or hemorrhoid...

I am with you, that water looks nasty.

[kitakaze]

I am with you, that water looks nasty.

And that's without the gators, cottonmouths, copperheads, and possibly even Bigfoots in the water.

[WGBH]

And that's without the gators, cottonmouths, copperheads, and possibly even Bigfoots in the water.

No gators, but tons of cottonmouths,copperheads and Bigfoot. :D

[LTC8K6]

http://hubpages.com/hub/Alligators-in-North-Carolina

Yep, alligators...

[GT/CS]

Something like this?

[WGBH]

http://hubpages.com/hub/Alligators-in-North-Carolina

Yep, alligators...

Really? Yikes.

[Spektator]

GT/CS, great photo. I can imagine a Gary Larson caption: "It wuz hard werk learnin to rite an gettin the mateerielz for da sign...but if we pulls dis off, boys, we eats like KINGS!"

[Vortigern99]

GT/CS, great photo. I can imagine a Gary Larson caption: "It wuz hard werk learnin to rite an gettin the mateerielz for da sign...but if we pulls dis off, boys, we eats like KINGS!"

Lolgators? ;)

[Shadou]

Very interesting reading. Although I can say what John saw that one morning out in the woods, I will say that I look at all sightings critically with a current logical basis. Logic points to unusual phenomena/personal experience but no actual large, elusive, unknown bipedal primate hiding out in the forrests of north america.

Reality is a very fickle human experience. Internal and external influences can manipulate our sense of what we believe is real, true, or not. Every person's view on the same witnessed event can and will be variably different from everyone elses. Doesn't mean that anybody is wrong though.

I think morpheus from the matrix said it best, "If real is what you can feel, smell, taste, and see, then "real" is simply electrical signals interpreted by you brain."

[Drewbot]

FYI, Blackwater rivers are also found in the northern BIGFOOT hotspots. One of my favorite destinations is the Tahquamenon River in Michigan's Upper peninsula.

The Tahquamenon River is a 94-mile (151 km) long blackwater river in the U.S. state of Michigan that flows in a generally eastward direction through the eastern end of the Upper Peninsula. It drains approximately 820 square miles (2,120 km2) of the Upper Peninsula, including large sections of Luce County and Chippewa County. It begins in the Tahquamenon Lakes in northeast Columbus Township of Luce County and empties into Lake Superior near the village of Paradise. M-123 runs alongside a portion of the river.

It looks like Iced Tea, and is by no means murky or dismal.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/2009-0618-TahquamenonFalls.jpg/800px-2009-0618-TahquamenonFalls.jpg

[idoubtit]

Speaking of porcupines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ5EyriQJHU&feature=player_embedded

I think the guy even says it is a porcupine but they chose a more ridiculous explanation. I WISH he climbed the tree.

[JcR]

Speaking of porcupines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ5EyriQJHU&feature=player_embedded

I think the guy even says it is a porcupine but they chose a more ridiculous explanation. I WISH he climbed the tree.

Twig formations, (structures) Tree knocking, baby Bigfoots in trees.
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/FBJ.gif
I guess I don't take notice of the finer details. Jeez! I would probably trip over one, and never notice. (A twig formation that is)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b565bf623815.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18772)

[Spektator]

Twig formations, (structures) Tree knocking, baby Bigfoots in trees.
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/FBJ.gif
I guess I don't take notice of the finer details. Jeez! I would probably trip over one, and never notice. (A twig formation that is)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_283964b565bf623815.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18772)

I tripped on a twig formation just an hour ago, walking my daughter's dog in the dark. It was a big twig, though.

[JcR]

I tripped on a twig formation just an hour ago, walking my daughter's dog in the dark. It was a big twig, though.

Kinda like this tree that "had it out" with a small Tornado we had a few years back
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/6923_1107001929377_1656683927_35410.jpg
Well I guess it was just a coincidence a big porcupine was straddling a branch at the top, then a Bigfoot came along to make his mark. (in cahoots together maybe)
...Then of course the tornado.
I don't know how big and puffy a Porcupine can get when agitated.

[William Parcher]

"The Searching for Bigfoot Inc., team has seen many photos and videos of what is believed to be the creature known as "Bigfoot". However, this one is the most convincing I have ever seen to date!" (http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/PENNSYLVANIA_VIDEO)


Attached is a drawing I made after repeatedly viewing and analyzing the film clip from Ken in Pennsylvania.


Images removed due to claims of copyright infringement. You may see them at this link: http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/PENNSYLVANIA_VIDEO

[GT/CS]

Wouldn't that make it kinda difficult to breathe?

[Vortigern99]

That's a nice drawing. Very competent technique... apart from the fact that the face, which is totally obscured by a large branch or fallen trunk, has been imagined in its entirety by the artist as a hominid ancestor.

Other than that, it's pareidolia at its finest.

[GT/CS]

That's a nice drawing. Very competent technique... apart from the fact that the face, which is totally obscured by a large branch or fallen trunk, has been imagined in its entirety by the artist as a hominid ancestor.

Other than that, it's pareidolia at its finest.

What, you mean that tree stump has a face?

[LTC8K6]

I posted stills from that video here some time ago...

[LTC8K6]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5292945&postcount=6