Misplaced Pages

I think what the website is trying to tell us is that the PG film is fake. That's nice. But really, if he (the site's author) can prove it than there's $100,000 waiting for him in Moscow.

There's no need to change the picture, the photo isn't some kind of hoaxed screenshot of frame 352. That's ridiculous. --Every1blowz 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Magazine

This magazine is Bigfoot Times. Can this be used ? Martial Law 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

To continue a point someone else made above: ML, please stop scouring the web for every Bigfoot-related site you can find. You're about 0 for 200 with links and sources that would be useful or relevant. There's nothing useful on the web related to this topic that isn't already used in the article. That's simply the nature of the beast, as it were. android79 03:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What about the views held by those that are religious, who claim it is a demon or The Devil, the New Agers' claim of it being a spirit guide, claims made about it attacking people, saving people, killing dogs, one or more links said it killed people, raiding farms and garbage dumps,people shooting at it with no effect,the other sightings going on since the '60s ? Martial Law 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

This is one really weird topic. I do apologise if I have been in error. Martial Law 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I've heard a military account on Coast To Coast AM in which, last year, a Marine allegedly shot and killed a bigfoot during a live fire(REAL ammunition is used) exercise. Martial Law 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Religion: Re.:Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd paragraph, 13th word in italics the RED word is se' irim, which in Hebrew, means Hairy Beings. THAT can be interpreted that the ancient Hebrews had seen a Bigfoot, and thought of the creature as a demon. Martial Law 04:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Based on that, some may interpret this as that Bigfoot are demons. Martial Law 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Can this be stated in the article w/o causing any problems ? Martial Law 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Again, I do apologise if I have been in error. Martial Law 04:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

New Bigfoot Organization

This organization is called I.B.A.G.. Not much is known about it. All contact info is in the "Home" section. Martial Law 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :D

KNOWN E-mail is: bigfoot46555@earthlink.net

Is this a good link ? Martial Law 08:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

They claim to be a NO kill organization. Martial Law 08:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :o

Seriously, this is just useless junk. You're not adding to the discussion one bit with all of this. It's been brought to your attention by many other people, so I think it's more than fair to say that you realize that what you're doing is not helpful, and is in fact hurting the discussion. If you feel absolutely compelled to post random useless links to sites with no actual content, why not just start your own blog about it and stop trying to hinder the discussion here? 65.223.249.151 17:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

NATIONAL NEWSPAPER

The USA Today has ran this article about a Bigfoot, and this is a HIGHLY regarded newspaper. Martial Law 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

If this link will not function, go offsite and go to this website:

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-bigfoot-cover_x.htm . Martial Law 08:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Neither link works...I tried...what was significant about it?--MONGO 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, as usual. He's just a vandal trolling here to annoy people. -- 65.223.249.151 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It had reported a Bigfoot. Do a Google Search:Bigfoot reports, then go to No.#3, then find, all in blue: USATODAY.com-Bigfoot's indelible imprint. That should take you to the USATODAY article. As for User:65.223.249.151, I am NO troll, nor vandal. Martial Law 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

Compliance

It is best to bring what I find here to the discussion page than it is to have what I find tossed out for being "unencyclopediac", etc. after placing what I find directly into the article itself. After all, this is a discussion page. This is the 3rd time explaining this. Martial Law 21:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

CNN Article

CNN article on Malaysia's Bigfoot Martial Law 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC) :)

In compliance, can I get a ruling on this link ? Martial Law 21:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC) :)

NPOV problems yet again

MONGO went ahead and readded a lot of details on various old hair "tests" mentioned in old pro-Bigfoot sources that I believe originally came from the now banned editor. The problem here is that devoting a lot of space to meaningless opinions of what people claim to have found with tests before DNA testing were used (and I note that that very important fact that they were not DNA tests was removed in the edit) only to have much later a section saying some DNA tests showed Bison hair and other known animals give undue weight to less reliable claims. This happens both by leaving out important info, dedicating much more space to pro-Bigfoot claims, and then not even getting the negative claims in until much later. I am once again reverting back to the older version for more balance.

The mere claim statment that "it is cited information, do not remove it" alone does not say anything about whether it fits within the NPOV policy. Adding lots of cited facts from old outdated publications with clear agendas on one side of the debate while removing an important note and not balancing the section simply in unacceptable.

Now, if you would like to shorten that (the article is too long as it is) and try for real balance, and include the info that it was NOT at all DNA testing and thus much more subjective (looking at hair samples and guessing) and also expland the skeptical section about it, then maybe it can be used, but really we need a good neutral summary.

And furthermore the entire structure of the article -- giving whole sections of one side arguing one way and then later having another side argue -- is highly problematic, as it makes the pro and con difficult to follow and for most people gives a distorted view by focusing on the first (pro) section. There should not be separate sections, it should all be incorporated together, so that when we talk about hair evidence, for example, all the relevant info is in one place, and not so that DNA testing shows real animals is hidden further down in the article. DreamGuy 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there was too much there; however, I thought MONGO's first paragraph in the section was better then the old one (especially mentioning as it does the black bear match) and so I've restored the first paragraph. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We can work on making it more neutral, but just because the cited source doesn't exist anymore is weak argumment for expulsion. The facts are that there is no prove offered by anything I added, and I don't believe the creature exists...but it would be unscientific to deny the possibility of it's existence solely just because DNA hasn't been performed. At the time of the hair inspection by the anthropologists I cited, DNA was costly, essentially not mainstream and extremely expensive, so it seems silly to mention that. Sarich blood analysis was the best readily available at the time...I can add that.--MONGO 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species.

This doesn't say much, as there are many ways hairs can be compared. To simply say they didn't "match" with no reference to the comparison criteria makes kind of an empty statement. Animal/nonanimal is kinda poor. For all we know, he may have just smelled them and went by what Granny Hawkins' told him when he was nine about the difference between the smell of a boy and a puppydog tail. Not real scientific. --SpeedyCar 01:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

proponents of this theory would argue that Bigfoot and the Yeti are one and the same, or at least closely related species.

How the hell can they even say this if they don't have a DNA comparison? At the very least, it's not introduction material (IMHO). The intro should be confined to verifiable aspeccts that define the subject at hand. This doesn't define, it confuses. Sure they, believe it, but let them believe it lower down in the article. Just MHO. Just trying to help make possible improvements. Take it or leave it and move on. --SpeedyCar 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently people did not even read my comments above, because the replies did not even address the main points and we had some people put the highly slanted info back in. NPOV is about BALANCE and OBJRCTIVITY. Adding more pro-Bigfoot hair claims back in from highly biased, outdated and unscientific sources while conspicuously not devoting the same or more space to the science side is a major violation of NPOV. Could you people at least read the policy and the points brought up instead of ignoring them and putting bad, slanted info back in? DreamGuy 06:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is a hopelessly unbalanced excuse of an article anyway...none of it is really neutral. I added the fact that DNA wasn't performed...nothing I added proves or disproves Bigfoot. There is much to still explain by the tens of thousands of footprints that have been identified and the hundreds of eyewitness reports. It would be biased to assume that every single one of these situations was the result of some massive hallucination. Again, I see almost zero evidence that BIgfoot exists and I don't personally believe it does, but we can't just find arguments to support our own biases...we have to also demonstrate our ability to look at the other side of the coin if we are really supportive of NPOV.--MONGO 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are simply some cases where views need to be presented, but it needs to be done with care. Too much pro-BF material, especially that which is unscientific, is overdoing it. There should be a solid unbiased intro telling the facts and the current scientific opinion on the matter, and the other views should be kept penned into a section to ppl don't confuse things. A solid, unquestionable definition in the introduction, unmarred by opinions or speculation (aside from the scientific community's view and a simple "others disagree and support BF for various reasons"), is needed to provide the ground to stand on to view the rest of the article. Otherwise it's a quagmire.

There is much to still explain by the tens of thousands of footprints that have been identified and the hundreds of eyewitness reports.

The fact that such reports exist should be enough, with perhaps very minimal embellishment. Covering them exhaustively would be ridiculous. We should see the "other side of the coin", but keep in mind that "other side of the coin" can be overdone just like anything else. I can see some of DreamGuy's frustration. Sometimes people can become crusaders for keeping balance to such an extreme that they lose sight of the bigger picture and start overcorrecting. Just take a step back and see if the bigger picture doesn't clarify things a bit. Look at some other encylopedias and see how much relative coverage they give to things for a very rough guideline.

But aside from "NPOV" issues: The view of the scientific community at large is important. It's not perfect, but provides a reasonable standard against which things can be roughly compared. That's why getting lost in a sea of Bigfoot views with no ground to stand on is irritating and uninformative.

I mean this as constructive criticism, and I can be wrong too, so please don't smack me too hard. --Shadow Puppet 15:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Facts are for me that I do not believe Bigfoot exists. Yet, it is vital if we support NPOV to cite what we can with the evidence we have. There is no proof whatsoever that Bigfoot exists...but that still, in itself does not explain all the issues. It will be very difficult to use web based referencing for items here. I quote from one source:

"That Gigantopithicus is in fact extinct has been questioned by those who believe it survives as the Yeti of the Himalayas and the Sasquatch of the Northwest American coast. But the evidence for these creatures is not convincing." from the following source: Humankind Emerging, Bernard G. Campbell, publishers: Little, Brown and Company, 1979, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 78-78234.

That is all that is mentioned in an authoritative college textbook that is 483 pages thick. In another book titled "Paleoanthropology" by G.E. Kennedy ISBN 0-07-034046-3 There are about 5 pages discussing Gigantopithecus (the most likely fossil representative that would equate with bigfoot) and not one word of Bigfoot is mentioned.--MONGO 16:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, hope I'm not confusing the matter. I don't know anything about this and just thought an outside view might help. --Shadow Puppet 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're being most helpful. The article needs a complete rewrite and I was only citing something that neither supports or refutes the evidence for Bigfoot...all of these researchers are well known, especially Ellis R. Kerley and Vincent Sarich and that helps make it more than just a reference from just any old blog or private website. As I demonstrated above, the two books I have that are readily available to me either don't mention Bigfoot or give it a thumbs down as to it's existence.--MONGO 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This edit war is becoming ridiculous. My God...

For the record, I support MONGO’s version of the article. Just because someone found a little more evidence "for" the existence of Bigfoot doesn’t mean we need to remove it because now the "sides" are unbalanced. That’s defeating the point. Most of us here agree Bigfoot does not exist, including myself, and with time then more evidence will pile up making the existence of Bigfoot less and less plausible, correct? Will we deny that evidence because we want the article to be "neutral"? Of course not, but the Bigfoot supporters will argue the article isn’t balanced since more space is dedicated to the conservative view. You see how ridiculous this argument is?

This hair evidence really proves nothing and can be taken both ways by an unbiased reader. You'll either believe it supports Bigfoot or it will prove to you that a majority of pro-Bigfoot research is BS.

The simple truth is, an article like this will NEVER be balanced. There are two sides with credible scientists supporting either. If we don’t keep this hair "evidence" in the article, someone down the line will eventually reinstate it because in their minds it is valid research and there is no reason to remove it. If you really feel so deeply about balance DreamGuy, then you shouldn’t have any trouble finding something to rebalance the article. Most scholarly work flat-out rejects the possibility of the creature's existence, right?

Secondly, there’s no point in "shortening" the article. Like I argued a while back, this article WILL need to be split up eventually as more Wikipedians contribute. Why are you holding back that fact, DreamGuy? --Every1blowz 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if I understand the argument here is that this hair evidence isn't DNA-based and thus is useless, right? Look here...

Some years ago, a long black strand of hair found in the mountains of Bhutan was examined by British scientists. The tall, hairy creature is believed by many locals to inhabit the forests and mountains of Bhutan, where it is called the Migyur.

The British scientists were led to this particular tree by Sonam Dhendup, the kingdom's official Yeti hunter.

Some of the hair was taken back to the UK for DNA testing. Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the Oxford Institute of Molecular Medicine and one of the world's leading experts on DNA analysis examined the hair.

We found some DNA in it," he said, "but we don't know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear and not anything else we have so far been able to identify.

It's a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn't recognise before.

There, now there has even been DNA testing on a "Bigfoot's" "hair" and the conclusion is basically the same and the source is The Times of India. The argument should be over now. --Every1blowz 02:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal...one thing I can say for sure as a person that has a degree in anthropology is that there is NO PROOF that Bigfoot exists. I am not even one who cares if he exists or not, so I am most certainly neutral on the issue. I think it would be "neat" if Bigfoot existed, but that doesn't cloud my judgement on this issue. I can also say that if a DNA test is run on an unknown hair or blood sample and it comes back as no match, then all that measn is if MAY be an unidentified animal....however, not all mammals have been DNA tested so it is difficult to crossreference if you have no known matches available in that lab. A test in India will probably not have a DNA result for the Black Footed Ferret, which is an extremely rare mammal found in the wild in only a few of the U.S. states now. I quoted the non species specific mammal part and it is attributed.--MONGO 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What I'm understanding from the India Times article is that they retrieved a hair from Indonesia, which was sent back to the UK for testing. Scientists were able to extract DNA, although so far they haven't been able to match it to any known animal. Since the tests were done at Oxford, I think they have a pretty significant DNA database, probably even the Black Footed Ferret. All this means is that there may be another animal living in Indonesia which hasn't been discovered yet. That is totally easy to believe. Like just two years ago they discovered a new species of ape living in Africa. If there really are undiscovered monkeys living in Indonesia, I think it's pretty self-explanatory that this may account for a good majority of Bigfoot sightings. Does anyone else think this should be mentioned in our Misplaced Pages article? I mean, this “evidence” is more convincing than the other hair analysis which hasn’t been DNA tested. Wasn’t that one of the things DreamGuy was complaining about? --Every1blowz 20:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

False accusations in edit summary

I have been contributing to talk unlike your latest revert's edit summary declares, DreamGuy...why haven't you? Your revert continuously adds a mispelled word and retitles one section with "feces" and there is nothing in that section about feces.--MONGO 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like an explantion why this Roy Pinker character is more notable than Ellis R. Kerley and Dr. Vincent Sarich.--MONGO 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do...

Why do the sightings STOP at 1967 ? The incident in Malaysia had taken place last year. Google Search:"Bigfoot News", and you get sightings that happened since 1967, and some of these things have been videotaped. I do apologise if I've been in error. Martial Law 06:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I've talked to some people about bigfoot, mainly in Fouke, as persuant to a investigation, which will not be placed here, due to WP:NOR. The last known report was in 2004. Martial Law 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Bigfoot Sightings Database

This Bigfoot Sightings Database has reports made from the '60s to the present. Is this link usable for placing in the "Alleged Sightings" catagory ? Martial Law 08:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :)

I've about had enough

I have been trying to estabish a working paragraph that is supported by the evidence in cited material.

Bringing this to a simple (but voting is evil I think) vote:

How many prefer Dreamguy's edit

1. DanielCD 19:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) I'm going to have to side with Dreamguy here. This article needs to give more of a simple overview, and even if it didn't, there's simply no need to go into so much detail over things that are quite inconclusive. Also keep this in mind: votes in this regard don't have any authority don't mean S-H-I-T. You can't vote for NPOV (at least not in this way/context) and such a vote cannot be criteria for keeping or discarding anything. In my opinion, you guys need to chill out in regards to placing large amounts of detailed material dumping moutains of crap into the article. Good writing doesn't just involve knowing what to include, but also what to leave out.