"The gods procreated with Bigfoot to creat Man"

[Tumblehome]

Todd Standing, the mastermind of the Bigfoot petition in Canada, will soon be taking his act south of the border with the aim of presenting a petition to Congress, according to his website (http://www.sylvanic.com/). He already has an online version of the petition here (http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?sylvanic&1). For your entertainment, I present this sampling of comments from the 121 people who have signed up so far. (Honest-to-goodness, I didn't make these up.) --"go boyz!!!"

--"SAVE THE BIG GUY!"

--"Thank God we can help these beings!"

--"A Species Imperative"

--"Protect Bigfoot with more national preserves"

--"10 million in the U.S. alone."

--"Bigfoot is an important part of the Pacific Coast biosphere"

--"If government don't think they exist then they should have no problem protecting a species that isn't there."

--"These are the 'men' whom the gods procreated with to produce 'man'. They need our protection."

--"Rare Creature(s)?and Human Cousin of Humans, Being Allowed to Kill One All In The Name Of Science, Would Simply Put, Be Sanctioned Murder By Our Government, All In The Name Of So-Called Science, I Don't Think So.....So No Thank You And YES...YES ...YES To Their Protection"

--"i'm in support of protecting such a species as bigfoot, in lieu of any/all attempts to tally and study the species...let's protect this one before we're outguessed by mother nater, again!" (from Todd Standing)

--"i support my son's attempt at legislation for species protection"

--"as author i endorse it, support it--thee issue therein" (from Standing's assistant)

--"they should be protected...i believe they exist...but if this protection is granted you had BETTER have the evidence you say you do..."

[arthwollipot]

:boxedin:

[grayman]

Couldn't help myself. #122 on the list. ;)

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Shame on that gnome, Grayman.

How can he seriously expect to get a protection order slapped on something that no one has ever seen, let alone been able to hunt, trap or shoot? Of all the animals that deserve our protection I think the ones that least deserve it are the imaginary invisible ones. What a dolt!

[arthwollipot]

--"If government don't think they exist then they should have no problem protecting a species that isn't there."

The logic of this one makes my head hurt. I've spent the last hour trying to come up with something witty to say about it, but I got nothing.

[Zep]

Well, they shouldn't be shooting at it if it ain't there, oughtern they! :crazy:

[BPSCG]

Couldn't help myself. #122 on the list. ;)You inspire me, sir.

# 123 :biggrin:

[BPSCG]

BTW, can anyone clue me in on what a "syvanic" petition is, and how it's distinguished from an ordinary, run-of-the-mill petition?

[tsg]

Well, I'm against it. Everyone knows that Bigfeet prey on leprechauns.

[Powa]

Well, I'm against it. Everyone knows that Bigfeet prey on leprechauns.
I for one didn't know that. :eye-poppi Poor leprechauns. Are they endangered, too?

[tsg]

I for one didn't know that. :eye-poppi Poor leprechauns. Are they endangered, too?

Have you seen one around lately? Me either.

[Miss Whiplash]

I for one didn't know that. :eye-poppi Poor leprechauns. Are they endangered, too?

That explains the unattended pot of gold I found. :D

[Tumblehome]

Couldn't help myself. #122 on the list. ;)



:D You have the undying gratitude of untold numbers (10 million in the U.S. alone!) of non-existent creatures.

I was tempted, but something held me back--something big and hairy, like...like...a man in a gorilla suit or something.

[Tumblehome]

BTW, can anyone clue me in on what a "syvanic" petition is, and how it's distinguished from an ordinary, run-of-the-mill petition?


Sylvanic is the name of the area where the con arti--I mean, Mr. Standing-- found Bigfoot living.

[Ysidro]

That explains the unattended pot of gold I found. :D

Ah, that was mine. I'll PM you a convenient PO Box far from my real address.

[athon]

I sent a letter to the Australian government years ago petitioning them to prevent the shooting of any more yowies, bunyips or tasmanian tigers. They complied, and since then not a single yowie, bunyip or tiger has been shot.

Democracy is a wonderful thing.

Athon

[Hitch]

Forgive the derail, but instead of endanger species protection for Bigfoot, we should be petitioning for tax-exempt status for Nigerian 419 scams. Those are a greater demonstration of faith than any recognized religion offers.

[BPSCG]

Looks like grayman's post # 122 sparked an ugly turn...
125) By all means ! Everything that doesn't exist, should be protected by law.

124) I wholeheartedly agree to this legislation. There needs to be an area set aside in which these majestic creatures can be in search of and hunted for so they can be identified, cataloged, and shot with a high calibre rifle

123) Yes, we should definitely protect all the Bigfoots, except for the one that's been rooting around in my trash can and ripping up my lawn and scaring my cats half to death. If I ever catch him, I'll shoot the SOB and have his corpse stuffed and mounted and prominently displayed in my rec room next to the unicorn I bagged last year in Scotland. Maybe I can charge admission.

[CynicalSkeptic]

I must take credit for #126 & #127

[grayman]

Looks like grayman's post # 122 sparked an ugly turn...

:cool:

[Hokulele]

Am I the only one amused by the irony of the name of the company (http://www.artifice.com/about_artifice.html) that runs the site on which the Bigfoot petition is hosted?

[Tumblehome]

Am I the only one amused by the irony of the name of the company (http://www.artifice.com/about_artifice.html) that runs the site on which the Bigfoot petition is hosted?

:D Nice catch.

[JayT]

BTW, can anyone clue me in on what a "syvanic" petition is, and how it's distinguished from an ordinary, run-of-the-mill petition?


Syvanic is probably a typo error.

I think the correct term is "sylvanic", from the Latin (silva = forest or woods) .

Sylvanic means of or pertaining to the woods or forest.

A sylvan is one who lives in the woods.

[JayT]

Shame on that gnome, Grayman.

How can he seriously expect to get a protection order slapped on something that no one has ever seen, let alone been able to hunt, trap or shoot? Of all the animals that deserve our protection I think the ones that least deserve it are the imaginary invisible ones. What a dolt!




I agree.

Invisible animals are not an endangered species. They are everywhere as reports from all over the world clearly prove beyond all doubt.

I'm sick and tired of those imaginary critters tracking up my lawn and garden leaving their invisible footprints and droppings all over the place! It wouldn't hurt to shoot a few of them!

Go for it!

I'd like to add a Bigfoot to my trophy collection of imaginary animals.

[Tumblehome]

--"If government don't think they exist then they should have no problem protecting a species that isn't there."

The logic of this one makes my head hurt. I've spent the last hour trying to come up with something witty to say about it, but I got nothing.


It's a minefield. Trying to understand it could make your head blow up real good.

I also liked, "Thank God we can protect these beings!" Thank something that doesn't exist that we can protect something that doesn't exist.

ETA: Here's another one that proves there's a lot of easy money to be made out there: "Whether or not they exist, whether or not they are primates, they are still existent in our minds and are animals and deserve protection as much as any other living animal."

[tsg]

ETA: Here's another one that proves there's a lot of easy money to be made out there: "Whether or not they exist, whether or not they are primates, they are still existent in our minds and are animals and deserve protection as much as any other living animal."

Does that mean we can ban watching Jerry Springer and American Idol because it endangers Bigfoot's natural habitat?

[Tumblehome]

Does that mean we can ban watching Jerry Springer and American Idol because it endangers Bigfoot's natural habitat?


:D That would be a good start. Judging by the logic in the petition's comments, I think we should be able to do anything to protect a figment of our imagination. After all, Bigfoot is "A Species Imperative" (whatever the hell that means).

[Cuddles]

I'm a little confused as to the point of this petition. Let's assume that bigfoot exists. Why would it need protecting? Giving it a protected status would make it illegal to hunt and kill it. But no-one has ever seen one, let alone managed to catch or kill one. What would be the point in making it illegal to do something that no-one can do anyway?

[BPSCG]

I'm a little confused as to the point of this petition. Let's assume that bigfoot exists. Why would it need protecting? Giving it a protected status would make it illegal to hunt and kill it. But no-one has ever seen one, let alone managed to catch or kill one. What would be the point in making it illegal to do something that no-one can do anyway?Good point. As I'm sure everyone knows, when shooting Sasquatch is outlawed, only outlaws will shoot Sasquatch. We don't need more laws protecting Sasquatch; we need to do a better job of enforcing the laws already on the books.

Meanwhile, they can take my stuffed Sasquatch away when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[Sir Arthur Mortal Coyle]

When was the last time we had a bigfoot sighting?

Bigfoot hoaxer's are obviously endangered and are in dire need of protection.

[grayman]

When was the last time we had a bigfoot sighting?

It looks like we've had a few (http://www.messinwithsasquatch.com/) recently. ;)

[Faithless]

I had to de-lurk for this thread. I'm responsible for #130. :D

[Achán hiNidráne]

I'm a little confused as to the point of this petition. Let's assume that bigfoot exists. Why would it need protecting? Giving it a protected status would make it illegal to hunt and kill it. But no-one has ever seen one, let alone managed to catch or kill one. What would be the point in making it illegal to do something that no-one can do anyway?

Who'd want to hunt Sasquatch anyway? I hear they are tough and gamy.:D

[hamelekim]

Shame on that gnome, Grayman.

How can he seriously expect to get a protection order slapped on something that no one has ever seen, let alone been able to hunt, trap or shoot? Of all the animals that deserve our protection I think the ones that least deserve it are the imaginary invisible ones. What a dolt!

There are a decent amount of people who have seen bigfoot. I don't mean some figure from half a km away but 100 meters or closer. Either those people are liars, telling the truth, or they saw a bear and thought it was bigfoot. Tails of bigfoot go back into indian legend and there is a story of one explorer in Canada back when the west was still unexplored, who came across a huge footprint in the mud that wasn't in their mind a bear print. If a man choose to hide from the world in the wild he could do so very easily, especially in Canada where 90% of the country is uninhabited. If bigfoot is intelligent enough to have a language (as is described in indian stories) then it is likely that they are intelligent enough to avoid human contact for the most part, except for scattered sightings and encounters.

People thought that the coelacanth was extinct until they found it off the coast of South Africa, so why can't there be other species that we haven't seen yet that still exist?

[hamelekim]

I'm a little confused as to the point of this petition. Let's assume that bigfoot exists. Why would it need protecting? Giving it a protected status would make it illegal to hunt and kill it. But no-one has ever seen one, let alone managed to catch or kill one. What would be the point in making it illegal to do something that no-one can do anyway?

What harm does it to to make it illegal? Better safe than sorry. There are plenty of people who would shoot and kill an intelligent sentient creature if given the chance, especially if it meant fame and fortune. Making it illegal to kill any supposedly extinct or imaginary creature is a good idea imo. You never know what new animals we might find and kill.

I mean, you're essentially saying that it isn't in the realm of possibilities that bigfoot might exist, but you don't know that. There are sightings by credible people as well as things like footprints and even voice recordings of strange howls.

I really don't see the harm in making it illegal to kill any cryptozoological creatures. We all have their blood on our hands if we don't.

[grayman]

There are a decent amount of people who have seen bigfoot. I don't mean some figure from half a km away but 100 meters or closer. Either those people are liars, telling the truth, or they saw a bear and thought it was bigfoot. Tails of bigfoot go back into indian legend and there is a story of one explorer in Canada back when the west was still unexplored, who came across a huge footprint in the mud that wasn't in their mind a bear print. If a man choose to hide from the world in the wild he could do so very easily, especially in Canada where 90% of the country is uninhabited. If bigfoot is intelligent enough to have a language (as is described in indian stories) then it is likely that they are intelligent enough to avoid human contact for the most part, except for scattered sightings and encounters.

People thought that the coelacanth was extinct until they found it off the coast of South Africa, so why can't there be other species that we haven't seen yet that still exist?
You are comparing a creature that supposedly lives close to mankind with as yet, no, repeat, NO evidence whatsoever of its existence (hair, skin, bones, etc.) with a creature that lives below the surface of the ocean. Apples and oranges hamelekim.

As for the "Indian legend", here's a quote I found at this site (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3546683_ITM). On April Fools' Day, 1929 (just months before the Great Depression began), MacLean's Magazine published a Burns article entitled "Introducing B.C.'s Hairy Giants." It was the first time the public ever heard of the Native ogres.

And since you state that the creature reputedly has language and intelligence, thereby allowing it to avoid detection other than the occasional sighting, shall I presume that you believe in extra-terrestrial visitations as well? Just asking.

[BPSCG]

People thought that the coelacanth was extinct until they found it off the coast of South Africa, so why can't there be other species that we haven't seen yet that still exist?You put your own finger on it. The coelacanth was believed extinct. But there was undeniable fossil evidence that it had once existed, even before anyone had ever seen a live one.

Where are the bigfoot fossils? Where are the bigfoot skeletons? Where are the bigfoot bodies? If this is a creature whose existence goes back tens of thousands of years and more, you have to assume there was always at least one mating pair, and given the rate of infant mortality among hominids in the wild, almost certainly many more. Why, then, is there no physical evidence whatsoever that it has ever existed?

Spare us the unsubstantiated anecdotal claims of hundreds of sightings; I'll trade them all for one actual animal. I have just as much physical evidence for the existence of an invisible pink unicorn tied up in my back yard as anyone else has for bigfoot.

[boojum]

What harm does it to to make it illegal? Better safe than sorry. There are plenty of people who would shoot and kill an intelligent sentient creature if given the chance, especially if it meant fame and fortune.
You got that right. Bigfoot better hope I never see him while I'm armed, 'cause if I am, that'll be one dead ape. This is mostly because I want to be able to make my fellow skeptics proud when they demand evidence of my sighting.

[Correa Neto]

Hamelekim,

The issues (as well as many others) you raised have been already covered at a number of threads here at JREF. This one is where most of the "action" is happening:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70782
It has "only" 110 pages at the moment of writing. Search for Bigfoot or PGF and you will find other (and even longer) threads.

I don't mean to be rude, but before invoking footprints, howls and sighting reports as evidence and making the implicit statements that they exist and also are intelligent and sentient, it would be nice for you to check what's been already discussed on these subjects. That thread would be a nice place to keep the discussion, if you think some aspects have not been debated enough. Its my personal opinion, and I guess most posters here agree, that the bigfoot subject has been beated to death. Perhaps some searches on the words "consiousness" and "sentient" at the phylosophy subforum would also be helpfull.

In the meanwhile, am still eargerly awaiting for reliable pieces of evidence to back the claim "bigfeet are real creatures". That's a crow I want to eat. Raw and with feathers if needed. Wake me up when they appear.
:s2:

[grayman]

I don't mean to be rude, but before invoking footprints, howls and sighting reports as evidence...

If these things were considered "evidence" along with huge hairy man-like creature sightings, then I've noticed plenty of proof at almost every biker camp-out that I've ever attended. Especially before I've had my morning coffee. :D

[William Parcher]

There are a decent amount of people who have seen bigfoot. I don't mean some figure from half a km away but 100 meters or closer. Either those people are liars, telling the truth, or they saw a bear and thought it was bigfoot. Tails of bigfoot go back into indian legend and there is a story of one explorer in Canada back when the west was still unexplored, who came across a huge footprint in the mud that wasn't in their mind a bear print. If a man choose to hide from the world in the wild he could do so very easily, especially in Canada where 90% of the country is uninhabited. If bigfoot is intelligent enough to have a language (as is described in indian stories) then it is likely that they are intelligent enough to avoid human contact for the most part, except for scattered sightings and encounters.

People thought that the coelacanth was extinct until they found it off the coast of South Africa, so why can't there be other species that we haven't seen yet that still exist?


You mean there are a decent number of people who say they have seen Bigfoot. That's not the same thing as actually seeing one. There certainly can be "other species" (besides Coelacanths) that exist but haven't been found. Newly and rediscovered species happen when they happen; but that does not mean that Bigfoot is real, or is even probably real. There is no causal link between any other animal's existence and the potential existence of Bigfoot. A Coelacanth doesn't ensure a Bigfoot at all. You can't use a known animal to "prop up" the likelihood of some other proposed and undiscovered animal.

I mean, you're essentially saying that it isn't in the realm of possibilities that bigfoot might exist, but you don't know that. There are sightings by credible people as well as things like footprints and even voice recordings of strange howls.

The so-called credibility of eyewitnesses is meaningless. This is because people that would be described as 'credible' are also fully capable of making mistakes or telling fibs. It's a kind of circular logic to think that credible people are always 'right on the money' because they were only granted the designation of credibility after it somehow became known that they are always 'right on the money'. If that were true, then the testimony of any credible person (about anything in the world) would automatically be accurate in any capacity under any circumstances.

Are you one of the world's Bigfooters?

[hamelekim]

You are comparing a creature that supposedly lives close to mankind with as yet, no, repeat, NO evidence whatsoever of its existence (hair, skin, bones, etc.) with a creature that lives below the surface of the ocean. Apples and oranges hamelekim.

As for the "Indian legend", here's a quote I found at this site (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3546683_ITM).

And since you state that the creature reputedly has language and intelligence, thereby allowing it to avoid detection other than the occasional sighting, shall I presume that you believe in extra-terrestrial visitations as well? Just asking.

Footprints are enough to identify wild animals all the time but they aren't in this case? If it's not like anything we have seen before then it is something new, or it's a hoax.

They didn't know the fish still existed until they saw one with their own eyes. They heard tails but didn't believe it until they saw it. It's the same with the bigfoot phenomenon. Until we actually catch one people won't believe it. Even if there was a real video people would still think it's a fake because of the ability to digitally alter video and photos these days.

I'm not saying I believe they have language and intelligence. Native tales talk about how their language was similar to another native language that was spoken. So they were able to communicate with them to some degree.

As for believing in aliens. I believe there is other intelligent life in the universe. Given the number of galaxies, stars, and planets statistically speaking there has to be. Whether or not they are visiting the earth is another matter altogether. I'd have to see it with my own two eyes to believe it.

This is the site I was reading when I mentioned Indian legends. It isn't just some modern phenomenon.

http://www.bfro.net/legends/siouanyuchi.htm

`Bruce Rigsby indicated that an Umatilla Shaptian informant (Oregon) told him of tall monstrous beings that live in the mountains and carry off people that never return. They call them st' iyahama; in English, she referred to them as "stick-Indians." These beings are not to be confused with the Panakhlamaichhlama, those who lead astray... they are the little people who also live in the mountains. ("Some Pacific Northwest native Language names for The Sasquatch Phenomenon," 1971, in "Northwest Anthropological Research Notes)"'

Giants were formerly common in Coeur d'Alene country. They had a very strong odor, like the odor of burning horn. Their faces were black--some say they were painted black, and the giants were taller than the highest tipis. When they saw a single tipi or lodge in a place, they would crawl up to it, rise, and look down the smoke hole. If several lodges were together, the giants were not so bold.

Most of them dressed in bearskins, but some wore other kinds of skins with the hair left on. They lived in caves in the rocks. They had a great liking for fish, and often stole fish out of people's traps. Otherwise, they did not bother people much. They are said to have stolen women occasionally in ohter tribes, but there is no tradition of their having stolen women in the Coeur d'Alene country.

Other supernatural beings that used to be seen in the Coeur d'Alene and Spokane countries were called the Tree men. They, too had a strong odor. km They dressed in buffalo skins and had the power to transform themselves into trees and bushes. Once, when a number of people were dancing in the Spokane country near a small lake close to the present day Cheney, they suddenly smelled a bad odor. One of them exclaimed, "That is the Tree Men!"

The people looked around and saw four men standing a little apart from one another and wearing around their shoulders buffalo skins, with the hair side out. As soon as they saw people looking at them, they dissapeared. Four bushes stood where the four Tree Men stood. Those fourkm bushes could be seen until lately. Possibly the power of the people's glances killed them or prevented them from changing themselves back into men.

There are trees which have been in one spot a very long time. They really are Tree Men, although they seem merely trees to people looking at them. In other spts, trees and bushes change places or are sometimes absent and sometimes present. Often when these beings were seen and people approached them, they dissapeared, and only trees or bushes could be found.

One thing mentioned about them is the smell. This has been mentioned in some modern day bigfoot sightings. There are some other interesting stories on other sites that deal with pre 1900 sightings of bigfoot.

There's also this interesting 911 call.

from this site http://www.bfro.net/avevid/SierraSounds/911.asp

http://www.bigfootsounds.com/call911.mp3

It's a real call and the guy swears he sees some very large and hairy human. It could very likely be just some guy in a hairy suit trying to scare people but this guy seems terrified. Not saying it proves anything except that the human imagination is very vivid. But you never know...

[hamelekim]

You mean there are a decent number of people who say they have seen Bigfoot. That's not the same thing as actually seeing one. There certainly can be "other species" (besides Coelacanths) that exist but haven't been found. Newly and rediscovered species happen when they happen; but that does not mean that Bigfoot is real, or is even probably real. There is no causal link between any other animal's existence and the potential existence of Bigfoot. A Coelacanth doesn't ensure a Bigfoot at all. You can't use a known animal to "prop up" the likelihood of some other proposed and undiscovered animal.



The so-called credibility of eyewitnesses is meaningless. This is because people that would be described as 'credible' are also fully capable of making mistakes or telling fibs. It's a kind of circular logic to think that credible people are always 'right on the money' because they were only granted the designation of credibility after it somehow became known that they are always 'right on the money'. If that were true, then the testimony of any credible person (about anything in the world) would automatically be accurate in any capacity under any circumstances.

Are you one of the world's Bigfooters?
If this is the case then witnesses should never be called to testify at a trial because their testimony isn't credible.

[Grimoire]

If this is the case then witnesses should never be called to testify at a trial because their testimony isn't credible.
Which is why witness testimony without corroborating evidence is frequently not enough to convict someone of a crime.

PS: Number 137. Sorry about the name...

[William Parcher]

If this is the case then witnesses should never be called to testify at a trial because their testimony isn't credible.

That doesn't follow what is at issue here. Witnesses in criminal trials don't need to convince any jury that humans exist in the first place.

[hamelekim]

That doesn't follow what is at issue here. Witnesses in criminal trials don't need to convince any jury that humans exist in the first place.

What you're saying is that witness testimony of something that hasn't been seen before isn't credible. If they say they saw some animal that has been seen before you would likely trust what they said.

I'm not saying that it's absolute proof, because it isn't. But it definitely does require more study because of the sincerity of some of these people.

[William Parcher]

They had a very strong odor, like the odor of burning horn.

I don't know what burning horns smell like, but it might be like burning hair. If that's the case, then it really isn't like what people describe as the smell of a Bigfoot. Are you trying to use that weird quoted citation as some sort of support for Bigfoot?

[tsg]

What you're saying is that witness testimony of something that hasn't been seen before isn't credible. If they say they saw some animal that has been seen before you would likely trust what they said.

It depends on how extraordinary the claim is. If you claim to have seen a pigeon, I will likely take your word for it because a) pigeons are common and b) it really doesn't matter to me if you didn't. If you claim to have seen a unicorn, then I am not going to take your word for it and, in fact, I might doubt any pictures you have of it as well.

[hamelekim]

It depends on how extraordinary the claim is. If you claim to have seen a pigeon, I will likely take your word for it because a) pigeons are common and b) it really doesn't matter to me if you didn't. If you claim to have seen a unicorn, then I am not going to take your word for it and, in fact, I might doubt any pictures you have of it as well.

What if it was your mother or sister that saw and photographed it? Would you believe them?

[tsg]

What if it was your mother or sister that saw and photographed it? Would you believe them?

No. They don't have to be lying to be wrong.

[hamelekim]

No. They don't have to be lying to be wrong.

So if they said they saw a bigfoot from 20 feet away (in an empty field) and could smell it, see it, and hear it, you still would say that they were wrong?

What you are essentially saying is that you won't believe it until you see it, but if you saw it and believed it to be real you wouldn't expect anyone else to believe you unless you had hair samples or actually killed the thing? Video can supposedly be faked, although there are a couple of videos that haven't been duplicated and proven in anyway to be fake (The freeman and Patterson films).

[tsg]

So if they said they saw a bigfoot from 20 feet away (in an empty field) and could smell it, see it, and hear it, you still would say that they were wrong?

Pretty much. I would believe they saw something they thought was bigfoot.

What you are essentially saying is that you won't believe it until you see it, but if you saw it and believed it to be real you wouldn't expect anyone else to believe you unless you had hair samples or actually killed the thing?

Pretty much, yeah. And just having hair samples wouldn't be terribly convincing either. But there's no need to kill it. Just find an already dead one. With the number of sightings the landscape must be littered with dead bodies. ETA: But a live one would be favorite.

Video can supposedly be faked,

I fixed that for you.

although there are a couple of videos that haven't been duplicated and proven in anyway to be fake (The freeman and Patterson films).

That doesn't make them not fake, and the sheer number of fake films casts serious doubts on the ones that haven't been shown to be fake.

And you might want to have a look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42523) concerning Patterson.

[hamelekim]

Pretty much. I would believe they saw something they thought was bigfoot.



Pretty much, yeah. And just having hair samples wouldn't be terribly convincing either. But there's no need to kill it. Just find an already dead one. With the number of sightings the landscape must be littered with dead bodies.



I fixed that for you.



That doesn't make them not fake, and the sheer number of fake films casts serious doubts on the ones that haven't been shown to be fake.

And you might want to have a look here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42523) concerning Patterson.

Just like the ground is littered with dead bird skeletons, wolves, foxes, bears, etc? I'd like to see you try to find a skeleton of any one of those animals let alone try to find one of a bigfoot which likely isn't going to just go and die in near a populated area, not to mention we don't know if they bury their dead. I would say it's impossible to find a dead bigfoot even if they are real. Just like it's essentially impossible to find the skeleton of any other wild animal.

No, those two films might be fake, but no one has produced a convincing replica of either video. You would think in this day and age that a costume maker or special effects department could come up with an exact replica based on the video and then film it using the same film to prove without a doubt that it was faked. To my knowledge it hasn't been done and if it's real it never will be done.

[tsg]

Just like the ground is littered with dead bird skeletons, wolves, foxes, bears, etc? I'd like to see you try to find a skeleton of any one of those animals let alone try to find one of a bigfoot which likely isn't going to just go and die in near a populated area, not to mention we don't know if they bury their dead. I would say it's impossible to find a dead bigfoot even if they are real. Just like it's essentially impossible to find the skeleton of any other wild animal.

Um, ever been to a museum? Or a zoo? How about here (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bird+skeleton&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2)? Scientists find animal skeletons all the time. No one, ever, anywhere, has ever found bigfoot remains.

No, those two films might be fake, but no one has produced a convincing replica of either video. You would think in this day and age that a costume maker or special effects department could come up with an exact replica based on the video and then film it using the same film to prove without a doubt that it was faked. To my knowledge it hasn't been done and if it's real it never will be done.

The inability to replicate it frame for frame does not mean it isn't a hoax.

[hamelekim]

Um, ever been to a museum? Or a zoo? How about here (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=bird+skeleton&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2)? Scientists find animal skeletons all the time. No one, ever, anywhere, has ever found bigfoot remains.


Yeah, and how many birds, foxes, bears, are there in the wild, and how many likely die each year, and how many skeletons do we find? How many of those skeletons you see at the zoo/museum come from animals that were shot vs found on/in the ground? Animals usually go deep into the woods to die. Why would scientists go deep into the woods digging up dirt to try and find a creature that doesn't exist? If they did so they might find a skeleton but then we don't even know how many bigfoot are out there so you can't say what the chances are of finding one.



The inability to replicate it frame for frame does not mean it isn't a hoax.

Actually it does. Take the same camera location take the same costume and get the person to walk along the same path in the same style as in the original film. Anything else is not proof that it is fake.

[BPSCG]

I would say it's impossible to find a dead bigfoot even if they are real. Just like it's essentially impossible to find the skeleton of any other wild animal. Here ya go.

Bison remains, Yellowstone National Park, March, 2006. I took the shot. http://images16.fotki.com/v30/photos/6/6017/3323392/DCP_4009-vi.jpg?1142175507

[tsg]

Yeah, and how many birds, foxes, bears, are there in the wild, and how many likely die each year, and how many skeletons do we find? How many of those skeletons you see at the zoo/museum come from animals that were shot vs found on/in the ground? Animals usually go deep into the woods to die. Why would scientists go deep into the woods digging up dirt to try and find a creature that doesn't exist?

Oh, I don't know, to find evidence of a new species? That's what zoologists live to do. There isn't a zoologist on the planet who wouldn't love to find bigfoot.

If they did so they might find a skeleton but then we don't even know how many bigfoot are out there so you can't say what the chances are of finding one.

Ah, yes, the "not enough people looking" defense. Terribly convenient. No matter how many people are looking, it's just not enough, obviously, because they haven't found it yet. The more people that look, the smaller the chance of finding one, so we need more people, never once considering that there may be nothing to find.

Actually it does. Take the same camera location take the same costume and get the person to walk along the same path in the same style as in the original film. Anything else is not proof that it is fake.

If someone did manage to do it, the footers will harp on every little detail that is out of place to say that it doesn't prove the original is a fake unless it is a frame by frame perfect reproduction, in which case they will claim it is the same film and not a replica.

But, just in case I'm wrong, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt00oThM4Ak) is a bigfoot film that is an admitted forgery. Show me a "convincing" reproduction of this film. It should be very easy if your claim is true.

ETA: In the end, videos can be faked, which makes videos of bigfoot not very reliable as evidence. The inability to reproduce any particular video doesn't change that. Especially since even if the video is proven a fake, it doesn't disprove the existence of bigfoot.

[hamelekim]

Here ya go.

Bison remains, Yellowstone National Park, March, 2006. I took the shot. http://images16.fotki.com/v30/photos/6/6017/3323392/DCP_4009-vi.jpg?1142175507

So you are comparing the plains to the forest? If these creatures exist they generally live deep in the forest and are rarely seen. It could also be that in the deep forest they bury their dead. Unless you knew where to look it would be impossible to find without some luck.

[grayman]

Yeah, and how many birds, foxes, bears, are there in the wild, and how many likely die each year, and how many skeletons do we find? How many of those skeletons you see at the zoo/museum come from animals that were shot vs found on/in the ground? Animals usually go deep into the woods to die.

Not many trees on the prairie. That's why I see the remains of deer, pronghorn, badger, skunk, raccoon, pheasant, and others along the railroad tracks. Usually after somethings munched on it, but the remains are there.

As for the footprints being proof, do you have footprints that have been determined without a doubt that they belong to a sasquatch? That's all most of us here ask for, undeniable proof.

[hamelekim]

In the end there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of bigfoot. If someone believes they saw bigfoot good luck trying to convince them otherwise. The believers will continue to believe and the skeptics will continue to be skeptical until something is actually found.

[hamelekim]

Not many trees on the prairie. That's why I see the remains of deer, pronghorn, badger, skunk, raccoon, pheasant, and others along the railroad tracks. Usually after somethings munched on it, but the remains are there.

As for the footprints being proof, do you have footprints that have been determined without a doubt that they belong to a sasquatch? That's all most of us here ask for, undeniable proof.

The only undeniable proof is a body and even then you would likely have people who thought it was some kind of hoax.

[grayman]

...If someone believes they saw bigfoot good luck trying to convince them otherwise. The believers will continue to believe and the skeptics will continue to be skeptical until something is actually found.
Like believers who claim to have seen UFOs. ;)

The only undeniable proof is a body and even then you would likely have people who thought it was some kind of hoax.

No, because a body can be examined and tested. That is why hoaxes are discovered to be such.

[William Parcher]

What you're saying is that witness testimony of something that hasn't been seen before isn't credible. If they say they saw some animal that has been seen before you would likely trust what they said.

No. I'm saying that when someone claims to have witnessed a really extraordinary thing, their credibility is not a meaningful factor. Imagine a 'credible' person who was a witness in a murder trial. He is a witness for the defense. He says that he saw a nine-foot tall saggital-crested hairy biped with bloody hands running away from the murder scene. The defense lawyer then tells the jury that John Doe (the defendant) did not kill Jessica Bimbo (the victim) and instead she was killed by the hairy giant 'creature' (or wildly mutated human) which was seen by the credible witness at the location and time of death. Now... at this point... given your apparent emphasis on personal credibility... the jury should become very interested in the credibility of this witness. If they find him to be credible (in whatever way that would or could be determined); the jury is fully justified to have reasonable doubt that Mr. Doe was responsible for Jessica's death. An unknown creature seems to have killed Ms. Bimbo because a credible person saw it leaving the scene with blood on its enormous hands.

I'm not saying that it's absolute proof, because it isn't. But it definitely does require more study because of the sincerity of some of these people.

It really doesn't require more study, because gigantic hairy bipeds are completely unknown to civilized mankind. They very much seem to be creatures of the imagination and folklore. This is what Bigfoot is. It makes no difference how sincere the witness is, because there is nothing to show that such a creature is real, and therefore that the witness is correct in their claim. We are all justified in thinking that the witness is either wrong or that they are not telling the truth.

We are talking about a population of very large primates living in the continental United States in the present day. This thing has not been officially found yet, either dead or alive. Given that fact, in light of the prevalent human presence in these regions over centuries... it is quite rationable and reasonable to think that such a creature does not exist. More study is not warranted because no amount of attention to the forest biodiversity (study) has ever produced any indication that Bigfoot is living there. All we have are stories (anecdote) and proposed secondary evidence (such as footprints and non-confirmatory recordings on film and video). We know for a fact that people are motivated (for whatever reasons) to hoax (fabricate) this seconday evidence for Bigfoot. Yes, some people seem to choose to create faked signs that the creature exists, in order to fool some people into thinking it is really out there. I guess that all could be going on simultaneously to the creature actually being there. It's just tough for most folks to think we have such a creature that has completely eluded confirmation for so long. The other folks are like you and think it's been there all along.

You are a Bigfooter, yes?

[hamelekim]

No. I'm saying that when someone claims to have witnessed a really extraordinary thing, their credibility is not a meaningful factor. Imagine a 'credible' person who was a witness in a murder trial. He is a witness for the defense. He says that he saw a nine-foot tall saggital-crested hairy biped with bloody hands running away from the murder scene. The defense lawyer then tells the jury that John Doe (the defendant) did not kill Jessica Bimbo (the victim) and instead she was killed by the hairy giant 'creature' (or wildly mutated human) which was seen by the credible witness at the location and time of death. Now... at this point... given your apparent emphasis on personal credibility... the jury should become very interested in the credibility of this witness. If they find him to be credible (in whatever way that would or could be determined); the jury is fully justified to have reasonable doubt that Mr. Doe was responsible for Jessica's death. An unknown creature seems to have killed Ms. Bimbo because a credible person saw it leaving the scene with blood on its enormous hands.



It really doesn't require more study, because gigantic hairy bipeds are completely unknown to civilized mankind. They very much seem to be creatures of the imagination and folklore. This is what Bigfoot is. It makes no difference how sincere the witness is, because there is nothing to show that such a creature is real, and therefore that the witness is correct in their claim. We are all justified in thinking that the witness is either wrong or that they are not telling the truth.

We are talking about a population of very large primates living in the continental United States in the present day. This thing has not been officially found yet, either dead or alive. Given that fact, in light of the prevalent human presence in these regions over centuries... it is quite rationable and reasonable to think that such a creature does not exist. More study is not warranted because no amount of attention to the forest biodiversity (study) has ever produced any indication that Bigfoot is living there. All we have are stories (anecdote) and proposed secondary evidence (such as footprints and non-confirmatory recordings on film and video). We know for a fact that people are motivated (for whatever reasons) to hoax (fabricate) this seconday evidence for Bigfoot. Yes, some people seem to choose to create faked signs that the creature exists, in order to fool some people into thinking it is really out there. I guess that all could be going on simultaneously to the creature actually being there. It's just tough for most folks to think we have such a creature that has completely eluded confirmation for so long. The other folks are like you and think it's been there all along.

You are a Bigfooter, yes?

I tend to take people at their word. If they saw something then they saw it. I guess I make a bad skeptic but I'm not a bigfooter, whatever that is.

[William Parcher]

I tend to take people at their word. If they saw something then they saw it. I guess I make a bad skeptic but I'm not a bigfooter, whatever that is.

You do make for a bad skeptic (because you tend to believe people at face value) and you are a Bigfooter by default (because you believe that people who say they saw a Bigfoot did see a Bigfoot).

A Bigfooter is someone who believes that Bigfoot really exists. You believe it exists, because you believe those who claim to have seen it really did see it. Is that right?

EDIT:

If they saw something then they saw it.

Actually, that is different than saying that if they say they saw something, then they saw what they say they saw.

[Skeptical Greg]

I tend to take people at their word. If they saw something then they saw it. I guess I make a bad skeptic but I'm not a bigfooter, whatever that is.

Give a lot of your money away to Nigerians ?


Taking people at their word, and being skeptical about what they believe they saw are not exclusive..

[grayman]

hamelekim, Bigfoot is usually lumped in this forum with UFOS, ghosts, Nessie, angels, whatever, because there is no evidence that these things exist. For the people that, as you state, "they saw something", yes, they probably did see something, and their mind tried its best to interpret what they saw.

This does not mean that what they claim is true. This only means they saw something they couldn't explain under the circumstances. It happens to all of us.

Have you ever saw something in the distance that you thought was, let's say an animal, and as you approach you realize that it was a log or piece of trash or something like that? Your mind is hard-wired to recognize patterns, that is why witnesses make mistakes. They may have thought they saw one thing, when it was something else entirely.

[Tumblehome]

I'm a little confused as to the point of this petition. Let's assume that bigfoot exists. Why would it need protecting? Giving it a protected status would make it illegal to hunt and kill it. But no-one has ever seen one, let alone managed to catch or kill one. What would be the point in making it illegal to do something that no-one can do anyway?


Don't look for logic in the petition; that way lies danger. The point is to raise Bigfoot's credibility in the minds of the public in order to make money off those who don't think logically.

[Tumblehome]

...you are a Bigfooter by default (because you believe that people who say they saw a Bigfoot did see a Bigfoot).


If Bigfoot is the same as a troll, then yes, he's a Bigfoot.

[hamelekim]

You do make for a bad skeptic (because you tend to believe people at face value) and you are a Bigfooter by default (because you believe that people who say they saw a Bigfoot did see a Bigfoot).

A Bigfooter is someone who believes that Bigfoot really exists. You believe it exists, because you believe those who claim to have seen it really did see it. Is that right?

EDIT:
Actually, that is different than saying that if they say they saw something, then they saw what they say they saw.

Well, part of me wants to believe and part of me doesn't believe. I'm always switching back and forth. Right now I'm in my "I believe" phase.

[grayman]

Well, part of me wants to believe and part of me doesn't believe. I'm always switching back and forth. Right now I'm in my "I believe" phase.

I'd like to believe too, in a lot of strange things, and I have. But without evidence, I can't anymore.

[hamelekim]

I'd like to believe too, in a lot of strange things, and I have. But without evidence, I can't anymore.

I don't base all my beliefs off of the scientific method.

[BPSCG]

In the end there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of bigfoot. The second part of that sentence is correct. It is just as correct as saying there is no way to disprove there are still dinosaurs somewhere on the earth.

As for the first, you are quite mistaken. Capture a large hairy bipedal hominid, subject him to DNA testing and establish his genetic makeup is different from every other bipedal hominid. Voila, Bigfoot giganticus.

Until you do that, everything else is BS. Again, spare us the hundreds of claims of sightings. Just bring one live one.

BTW, you can't claim that many people have spotted them and at the same time claim they are very difficult to find because they're in the forest and they hide from humans and they bury their dead. They are either easy to find or they are not. Which is it?

[arthwollipot]

Just like the ground is littered with dead bird skeletons, wolves, foxes, bears, etc? I'd like to see you try to find a skeleton of any one of those animals let alone try to find one of a bigfoot which likely isn't going to just go and die in near a populated area, not to mention we don't know if they bury their dead. I would say it's impossible to find a dead bigfoot even if they are real. Just like it's essentially impossible to find the skeleton of any other wild animal.

My dog seems to always be bringing back old skeletons of dead kangaroos. It seems that there are roo corpses all over the place.

Edited to add: it may be rare to find a dead wild animal (even though it's actually not), but we only need one.

[Cuddles]

gigantic hairy bipeds are completely unknown to civilized mankind.

Scotsmen.

:boxedin:

[Tumblehome]

That's how you can tell all Bigfoot photos have been fake. They're not wearing kilts. :cool: