Misplaced Pages

Martial Law 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just leave out the New York Times. The've been caught in another scandal. Seen the report on Fox News a short time back. Martial Law 10:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't comfirm this, nor deny it, just seen it on the Fox News Network a while back. Martial Law 10:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a investigator myself, thus I cannot place anything even remotely considered "original research" in this format, and, like a doctor or cop, I have to take a NPOV stance as well, and I do really try to be civil here as well, and I do not let my experiences influence me either, thus I'm able to follow Wiki protocol. As to Verifiability, I really go after the sources, even sources of the secondary sources. Martial Law 10:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now, Misplaced Pages has some kind of bug that causes data loss if you're in the Edit mode too long. Martial Law 10:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

If this article is protected, why is there no protected tag on it? I assume it's sprotected? User:Zoe| 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Because Beckjord did another one of his preferred-version reverts. android79 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

After I re-added the tag, it was removed by Bunchofgrapes. User:Zoe| 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm, must have been an edit conflict thing. The initial removal was indeed Beckjord's. android79 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Either one of those weird silent edit-conflict bugs you hear about or I had some sort of spasm. Either way, sorry. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this....

Is this what you're referring to ? Bigfoot on Animal X

More data to follow. Just remaim civil, User:Beckjord. Android79, this link appears to be zoological in nature. Is it safe to add to the other links ? Martial Law 22:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Is what what who's referring to? That link is meaningless... it's a promo for a video or something that I'd have to purchase to determine if it's meaningful or not. Really, ML, you need to read WP:RS and WP:EL. That's not usable as a source, because there's no information there, and it's not useful as a link, because you have to buy something. android79 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Puke,urrrp, YUCK! That is one link that is'nt going anywhere. Martial Law 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What of the Cryptozoology link, which is Cryptozoology Homepage ? Martial Law 22:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC) By the way, that was my wallet throwing up, not me. Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 22:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Once again, much of the article lacks reliable sources.

I added {{totallydisputed-section}} to the section on UFO speculation. Unfortunately, I don't have time to comb through the rest of the article; I suggest a liberal sprinkling of {{fact}} tags, and then we can go through them a section at a time. android79 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem we had there was Beckjord tried rewriting huge chunks of the article, adding tons more unverified claims, original research, major violations of WP:NPOV and so forth, not to mention links to himself, duplicated sentences, changed words without regard for meaning, etc... When someone makes that many mistakes and bad contributions all at once, the only thing to do is to revert it all and then go through and add back anything worth saving... which wasn't much. Trying to go back and edit it piece by piece is just a waste of time. The totally disputed tag got lost in the revert, and with that section the way it is after reverting Beckjord's edits, I didn;t think the tag was necessary anymore. Of course there are lots of other unverified bits in there still from before BEckjord even got here. DreamGuy 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot and Wormholes

User:Beckjord may have a point about the alien bigfoot. Just done a Google Search: Bigfoot and Wormholes. There are nearly 10,000 websites and data sites concerning this matter. Three or four are claims made by User:Beckjord, the others are from websites that have independent info. about this matter. Am investigating this one. Martial Law 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC) :o

There are exactly 9,310 websites and data sites about this subject. Martial Law 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about how chimpanzees stick blades of grass into worm holes and get the little wrigglers to stick on so they can pull them up and have a snack? Ruby 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the show Sliders ? Martial Law 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what User:Beckjord is referring to, so, I had to do a Google Search on "Bigfoot and Wormholes". User:Beckjord may faint. Martial Law 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... Sliders is fiction... android79 00:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Allegedly, it is based on Michio Kaku's work. Go to Michio Kaku's Website for more. Just trying to find out what User:Beckjord is trying to state. Martial Law 01:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I can tell you that. Beckjord's hypothesis:

1. Inter-dimensional wormholes exist.
2. <vigorous hand-waving>
3. Therefore, Bigfoot is actually an interdimensional being that has traveled to Earth via a wormhole.

It's like the Underpants Gnomes of pseudoscience. android79 02:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I get it, Sliders is thinly disguised as fiction. Those of you in the Bigfoot community wink and nod your heads. Ruby 03:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

>>>>No,no, no.... Sliders and a current series that has people jumping thru a round circle of water like material, (forgot name) are fiction that is based on the wormhole THEORY.(Transverse wormholes) (not proven fact.) What is wrong with that? There are also movies based on the Theory of Time travel. So what?

Joe S.

The other is Stargate:SG1. Martial Law 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

At long last, we learn the surname of the fabled DrJoe! Perhaps next week we will be graced with the presence of Jeff Leninkidney.

Come on, Beckjord. Stop this charade. We all know it's you. Use your main account to comment here. I had thought you had decided to drop the sockpuppets and deal with us plainly. Apparently that's not the case.

Evidence of supposedly-disappearing-before-your-eyes Bigfoot or tracks that stop abruptly aren't evidence of extradimensional travel, sorry.

..>>>>>> no, since it is not, since Bigfoot does not stand around waiting for instrumentrs to be set up. But it is a good indicator that the creature went somewhere, not on this Earth, unles it has hidden wings, or a totally silent CIA helicopter. Int is an INDICATOR of possible wormhole travel. What Kaku says about ufos using WH is that it is speculation,

He never said it was proven. You idiots. If it were proven, nobody wouod bnother reading it HERE, they would see in the NY Times.

beckjordBeckjord 06:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Kaku's hypothesis about wormholes lends no credence to your own theory about Bigfoot; you can stop dropping his name as though it means something. (Indeed, Misplaced Pages's own article on wormholes contains a reference that theorizes that travel through wormholes of this type is impossible. The question of wormholes is far from settled.)

ho ho ho>

AND WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS SETTLED?

I've read your Bigfoot page, Beckjord. It is exactly as I say above – hand-waving. Sure, you offer up the caveat that it's "just a theory", but a theory without any meaningful evidence to back it up is not very useful, and I don't need to "go back to college" to know this. This is the stuff of science fiction.

Get outdoors, do research, then open your mouth. 50% of all skeptics who went Bigfoot hunting became believers.

BeckjordBeckjord 06:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, even if it were a meaningful theory on the origin of Bigfoot, it's still simply original research for you to point to your own website. If you want "equal time" for the Bigfoot-as-alien concept, we need some reputable sources that identify it as a valid theory discussed among mainstream researchers. If that's not possible, we could maybe include a section on fringe theories – but only if you provide some references that explain that a sufficiently large number of people believe it or are interested in it, and that it's been covered in relevant newsmedia or suchlike.

You complain about your edits getting reverted, when all you do yourself is revert to a version of the article you prefer. We've explained countless times why this is unacceptable. android79 14:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

EB has evidence to support his theory. This is in the form of:

1) disappearances in front of witnesses, including separately, EB himself (reference,

Thom Powell in The Locals, listed in the sources area of the Bigfoot article.

2) Tracks that end in snow, as documented by researcher Brian Smith on video, as referenced by the on-agfain, off-again external link disappearing tracks

(also witnessed in separate events by EB, and researcher Shelly Binkleley, and WASH State Highway Patrolman Mark Pittenger (retired).)

3) It is unfortunate that Android and Dreamguy are both non-readers and are knee-jerk skeptics. Their relentless persecution of this article is amazing, based on their total LACK of any reading on the topic. A major flaw in Wiki. The gross bias, (see above comments by Android) is remarkable. They could not be more biased and ignorant if they had tried. Perhaps a year of so in a Jr College? I wonder if they have even read ANY of EB's website, which gets 1000 hits a day, one of the highest of all the Bigfoot websites not counting one run by a fraud artist and hoaxer who happens to be tops in I.T. Run a google search, Android, on Beckjord and you will find thousands of references, some critical, and some fraudulant but most favorable.

Joe Stalinheart of the editing committee on Bigfoot

It's unfortunate you assume anyone who disagrees with you is a non-reader or idiotic. Frankly, if you tried to pay attention to what people were trying to tell you, you might learn something -- at least about how this encyclopedia works, if nothing else.

Furthermore, as soon as you first showed up trying to get the Erik Beckjord article changed to make you sound better, I actually DID do a google search. The claim that most the references to yourself are favorable is untrue. DreamGuy 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot and UFOs

Just did a Google Search on "Bigfoot and UFOs". there are 660,000 websites and data sites that discuss Bigfoot and UFOs. Martial Law 23:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Google Searches even indicate that religious fundamentalists believe that these are demons and/or "of The Devil", while the New Age movement says that these are Spirit Guides. It is surprising what is found. Martial Law 23:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile we're still waiting for the DNA of a previously undocumented primate. Even a tuft of hair stuck in a branch of a Hemlock tree will do. Ruby 03:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you like that you'll LOVE this: Alien Bigfoot. Someone had found this while in a US mountain range. It appears to be one of User:Beckjord's aliens or some kind of Bigfoot. Martial Law 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it appears to be a wolf or coyote, but what is it ? Martial Law 04:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

With the distance, and murkiness of the situation, it is just hard to tell.

But consider the story of the campers along with it. "Wet dog" smell is often found when people begin to tell Bigfoot stories.

Joe Stalinheart

Bigfoot in religion

See...

See the Misplaced Pages article:Demon, Re.:Demons in the Hebrew Bible, 2nd paragraph, 13th word in italics, the word se'irim, which means "Hairy Beings". It that a Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This may explain why the religious believe Bigfoot is a demon. Martial Law 04:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm religious and I live in Bigfoot country but I don't believe Bigfoot is a demon. In fact, I don't believe Bigfoot is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ruby 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't. There are those that do. Did not mean to offend, just analyzed some surprising data on this creature. Martial Law 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do apologise if I did offend you. As stated, was only analyzing some surprising data. Martial Law 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This website favors the position that this creature may be a demon and/or "of The Devil. It is Bible Life Homepage. Martial Law 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Here, it is Bible Life's position on Bigfoot Martial Law 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC) This link has secondary links to other Biblical sites as well. Martial Law 19:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Both are hairy beings. Did the ancient Hebrews spot a Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is some of what I've found while running a Google Check. Martial Law 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This states that, as stated, that those that are religious believe it is a demon. Martial Law 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's just Beckjord's website...it is NOT from a scientific journal, or any of the other sources I have repeatedly stated that would be scientifically credentialed enough to warrant using as a reference source.--MONGO 12:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention DreamGuy and Android79 and Bunch of Grapes

It is vital you grasp that I do not say nor claim that Bigfoot is real, nor that it exists as a physical zoological thing. And most field workers also do not claim that Bigfoot is a proven fact. Nor do we say it in the Bigfoot article. (npov) right?

We are TRYING TO FIND OUT what it is. We talk about our searches and our speculations.

By so talking, we do not violate npov.We speculate, we make hypotheses, we make theories. We do NOT state anything is proven.

Do you understand this??????????????

It is all imho, or ioho and fwiw.

Do you get it?

We have never stated in the article that Bigfoot exists, nor that it is a proven fact.

Because it is not proven. We know that. We are working to find proof.

DO-YOU-GET-THAT?

PLEASE REPLY HERE SO WE KNOW YOU GRASP THIS CONCEPT. You think we are trying to force Bigfoot on the readers as a proven thing. This is NOT true. Bigfoot is NOT proven.

Beckjord205.208.227.49 09:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord, can I politely ask you what exactly out of that comment has any place in the article itself? The articles in Misplaced Pages do not support the incorporation of opinions that have no basis in facts that cannot be cross referenced. It is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policy of no original research. This is a policy so if you have a problem with that policy then you can discuss ways it should be modified. All contributors to Misplaced Pages are required to follow policies if they want their information to be in the articles. If you believe that you cannot abide by the policies that everyone else is required to abide by, then that seems a bit unfair, don't you think? You can put whatever you want into pages on your website(s), but that doesn't mean you can put those things here. I'm still trying to help you understand this situation and sadly, it doesn't appear that I am succeeding.--MONGO 12:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You do not get it

I am trying to reach two people, maybe you too, to show them that their feeling that I was trying to sneak in some feeling that Bigfoot was a proven fact, is not correct. I never asked them to use that paragraph IN the article. It is overview, for their brains to absorb. You also.

I think there should be a mandatory and proven educational level required to edit. No BA,no edit. Paper bought degrees not allowed.

beckjordBeckjord 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a journal for self-published scientific papers. Ruby 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Beckjord, I have a Master's degree. Not that it matters. android79 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Need..

They need independent evidence, yet favorable to your position on Bigfoot. My Google search has revealed this evidence. Martial Law 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you and your personnel are here, User:Beckjord, do a Google Search on the creature, wormholes, UFOs, religion, Interdimensional, and you'll see what I've found. 3 or 4 data sites refer to your website, yet the rest are from other sources. Martial Law 21:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

ML, quote the evidence, here, and request it be inserted as an edit, by some admin. DO not MAKE THEM LOOK IT UP, THEY WILL NOT TAKE THE TIME. THEY THINK THEY ARE TOO IMPORTANT. MOST OF YOUR WORK HERE IS WASTED, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ASK FOR SPECIFIC EDITS.

Got it?

BeckjordBeckjord 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For you:Bigfoot and Wormholes ? and

Bigfoot and Wormholes ? Martial Law 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal Palace Homepage Martial Law 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who or what...

Who or what is "the Edit Committee" ? Martial Law 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The first rule of the Edit Committee is do not talk about the Edit Committee. Ruby 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember Beckjord claiming to have a group of people here making edits? That's what he's talking about. It's just beckjord using lots of sockpuppets to try to make him seem more important. DreamGuy 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of sad if it's true. He might be really in trouble, biochemically. Ruby 01:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

>>>Ruby, DG, why in God's Heaven should I care what you think?

BeckjordBeckjord 06:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

First...

First independent evidence of what User:Beckjord is stating ? First independent evidence of Bigfoot using a wormhole ?! Martial Law 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If link is malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude. That's GeoCities. Come on. android79 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about this Bigfoot vanishes Martial Law ? 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: have you even read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and other policies we pointed you too earlier? It's someone who posted on some messageboard citing posts from other messageboards. It is not scholarly or reliable in the slightest. DreamGuy 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. That is why I'm after independent evidence, other than User:Beckjord's site. Martial Law 01:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than what User:Beckjord has stated, there is'nt much out there at this time. Martial Law 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Really do appreciate your reminder User:Dreamguy. As stated, just investigating to see if User:Beckjord's hypothesis is correct. Martial Law 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Source check please

Paranormal News Homepage Martial Law 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Applicable link is this one:Paranoemal News section: Cryptozoology Martial Law 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mongo, can I get this link checked out ? Martial Law 09:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

?!!

WHAT is a beeping Bigfoot ? Sounds like it is a robot or a automatonic device. Martial Law 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Bigfoot has a cell phone. I wonder if Sprint has coverage up on the Dark Divide. Ruby 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Seen this on User:Beckjord's website. Martial Law 02:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy flying wombats! It must be true--MONGO 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

BEEPING BIGFOOT

noT PROVEN, but researcher Shelly Binkeley of OR, reports it with witnesses, around her camp, and next day BF tracks found in mud, which vanished with no hard ground to jump to. BIRO has copies of sound, which are similar to a backing up truck, but no such trucks can get up a mountan trail.

vincent K

At some point, you're bound to run out of names for yourself...see:WP:NOR, again.--MONGO 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the truck was dropped by helo. That's no stranger than wormhole theories. Ruby 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

External link

I have added the link to Beckjord's website since he seems dead set on having it there. He emailed me and asked that I do a number of things but this is the only one I'm doing. If anyone else thinks it doesn't belong here, then expain why and take it out...it appears to be pure speculation, but has a few images of interest to some. What we won't do is support Beckjord using his own article to add information to this page in the article area as that would violate WP:NOR...but his website is only a bit more POV than some of the others listed here.--MONGO 09:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the very first things we discussed here... It clearly violates the Misplaced Pages:External links rules on what should not be linked to. This violates the clauses on sites owned or operated by the person putting it there (as you are only putting it there due to Beckjord's insistence). This is self-promotional spam, pure and simple, and it has been one of the major goals of Beckjord since the first moment he found out about this place. If we include the links just because someone insists it belons there then we leave ourselves open for spammers to hit every article and make such demands and be treated the same way. If someone else had put the site there before Beckjord showed up thinking it was noteworthy and had valuable info, that'd be another story, but it didn't happen, because his site isn't considered valuable even by the pro-Bigfoot people who had control of this article for so long. We are iundern no obligations to cave to the demands of someone constantly vandalizing the page and adding his own original research. DreamGuy 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly won't revert you...it was my last effort to assume good faith, not even sure why I bothered.--MONGO 13:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

! and bug

Have to go report the same bug again. This thing causes registered users to appear to have sockpuppets. Heading to WP:AN and WP:BUG again. Martial Law 09:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there's also a bug that makes registered users appear to engage in personal attacks. Ruby 22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL !!!! Almost fell out of the chair. Martial Law 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In case numerous editors here have forgotten

PLease add as you wish to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence. I already spammed a few on their talk pages, so let's get this over with please.--MONGO 13:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Article needs link clean up

This article needs some cleaning up, particularly per MOS and OMLTARTTC.

There is also a fair amount of redlinks, which should be removed. I was going to do it myself but noticed some redlinks like John Napier were formatted as if someone was going to go and write an article about the individual but never got around to it.

In any case, I just thought I’d give a heads up and some time for anyone who wants to start an article for any of the redlinks before they’re removed. Regards, --Every1blowz 16:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, words that deserve articles but don't have them yet are supposed to stay redlinked to encourage people to make them, but of course some of these people very likely will never have a real article. The John Napier one was specifically formatted because without the disambiguation part it does go to an article, but to the wrong John Napier.

Scanning the article for redlinks, Ray Wallace (there's no article on him yet?), MacLean's probably should if that really is or was popular (or maybe its spelled wrong or something and an article already exists?), Bossburg, Washington (?), and Esteban Sarmiento (assuming that really is a prominent scientist... but if not it shouldn't be delinked but removed completely) should probably stay, perhaps Napier too, the rest I think can be dumped. DreamGuy 16:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case I took the liberty of starting a few half-assed articles on John Napier, Bossburg, Washington, John Bindernagel and Endau Rompin National Park. --Every1blowz 17:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Also started article on Esteban Sarmiento. --Every1blowz 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Started articles on Raymond L. Wallace, Samish, and fixed Maclean's as well as Dysplasia. I'm dumping the rest as agreed, DreamGuy. --Every1blowz 11:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Estiban Sarminento

He was supposed to be employed by the NY Museum of Natural History, but they never heard of him. SIR John Napier is dead. Someone add edit "the late Sir John Napoer" also "the late Dr. Grover Krantz of WSU". It is important to let readers know who is current and who is DEAD.

PLEASE ADD EDITS.

felix

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Didn't you just tell us, "people not famil. w/ literature may not edit" ? Ruby 22:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Talking Bigfoot" ?! / Who are the "Skeptics" ?

'What is a "talking Bigfoot" and who are these "Skeptics of Bigfoot" ? Martial Law 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, I think I've heard/seen it all. Martial Law 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Martial Law, FYI, there has been some individual's claiming that they have a recording of bigfoot "talking" in Ohio. MarcusTCicero 03:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Commentary

There are a group of serious researchers out there who are trying to do serious research and studies into this subject of bigfoot. There is evidence out there, if you are willing to look for it, of the possible existence of a animal called Bigfoot or Sasquatch.

I know those people and used to share their views

But after 5 yrs, I learned that their POV was untenable. Other alternatives became more tenable.

And Marcus -- 99% of those people DO NOT GO OUT OF THE HOUSE. I know them. 90% of them. And of those who do go out, 99% never saw Bigfoot, ever. Call me and I will explain. 415-289-=2277.

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the "Armchair Researchers" out there. MarcusTCicero 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There are those who believe and have accepted that it is a flesh and blood animal.

Not interested in what they "believe"

They HAVE NO BASIS. Show me a dead body.

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Not like some who believe it is a alien, a robot, or even a shapeshifter. I believe that where this line of "research" comes from is a mixture of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of facts and what is seen and not seen.

I have not misunderstood anything, nor have my associates of like mind. And they have names, unlike you.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

People start looking into the native american legends and lore and see or read more into it than what it really means.

Research shows the Indians are largely correct.

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We apply the standards of today into something that you must put into perspective of the time it was written. People thought and spoke differently than what we do now.

They say the same in 2006.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

They tried to make sense out of what they saw with the limited knowledge and understanding of the incident.

They were largely accurate. I tested it. What right have you to "talk down" to my Indian friends?

BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not "talking down" to anyone. Actually I have found the native american naratives to a great resource to my own research. So, please do not accuse me of that. MarcusTCicero 16:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What our friend EB is trying to do present a side of the story that is not widely accepted by most of serious researchers out there.

NO NO NO

What is a =SERIOUS RESEARCHER=  ?

Someone who never saw a Bigfoot, usually.

This is getting amusing.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should explain this a bit more. A "Serious Researcher" to me is someone that is willing to look at both sides of the fence. Pro's and Con's of a given subject. Sometimes a researcher can get locked into a idea, theory, or whatever that they tend to lose sight of their original objective. If you let yourself get bogged down in the little details then you lose perspective of the larger picture. It is not about what they have done or seen but how objective they are in their research. Nothing is bad about toying around with a idea but it can only go so far. Does it sort make sense? Always remeber that a good researcher has perspective of what they are researching. Because sometimes you might find or miss a clue to what you are looking for. MarcusTCicero 16:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to argue with someone who believes rather than someone who is skeptical of the topic at hand.

..>>>>> i NEVER SAID I "believe". I simply offered a theory.

You do not read what I say correctly.

beckjordBeckjord 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok you got me on that one, my mistake. However, I believe the statement, "It is hard to argue with someone who believes rather than someone who is skeptical of the topic at hand"., is true. It is harder to have a rational discussion of a topic with someone who "believes" rather than being very "skeptical" of the topic, wouldn't you agree? or the information?. MarcusTCicero 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am skeptical

always was, and found the zoological idea was NO GOOD.

Have you ever talked to me? Hey? Do you know me? No.

Call me and discuss. 510-633-2526. Got BASIC BALLS TO TALK ON PHONE? Most do not, are afraid to even say who they are. Only 2% of all wikians list their real name.

beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Erik, I have talked to those you sometimes vilify in your statements. I know of your reputation. And, yes, you and I have had a discussion once before. I have the upmost respect for your opinions and views, even though I might not subscribe to them. You do make some valid points and I must respect that. There is no need to talk on the phone. And I rather enjoy my anonymity here and elsewhere. MarcusTCicero 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Admin's here are doing a fine job in trying to keep a neutral point of view here.

rotten job

They do not understrand NPOV at all. Cannot apply it, cannot read it where it rises. beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That is what is needed because the average reader can draw their own conclusions or seek the information elsewhere. MarcusTCicero 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your people

User:Beckjord, you and your people will have to be civil. Some of the editors on here are women, such as User:Ruby, and they don't need to see that kind of language. You're too much of a gentleman and a MENSA member to be using uncivil language. I'm only being truthful, no more, no less. Martial Law 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone is using your computer to "cuss out" someone, such as User:DreamGuy, remind them that uncivil matter is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. Someone doing that can reflect badly on you. Martial Law 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology

You and your people should apologise to these editors, and you and your people need to refrain from using vulger language like that. A apology now could go a long way here. Martial Law 06:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Links, incl. Bigfoot PIXES

These are:

• Bigfoot Pixes #1
• This link has alleged fossil evidence of a ?
• Bigfoot Pixes #2

Can I get these checked out ? Two have some interesting bigfoot pixes. Martial Law 05:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If links are malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

ATT: Links may have "expired". Martial Law 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot sites

New Bigfoot website. Martial Law 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Sasquatch , Bigfoot Sounds

Can any of these links be used ? Martial Law 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Psychic Bigfoot ?

Thought I had seen it all. I was incorrect. Martial Law 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk NPOV and NOR and using experts on Wiki here

I've finally read these items, and I find the so-called violations by me, are really minor errors on wording, such as how one must say (says NPOV)

"except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to "

So, I'll try it. (just one of many points I will raise)

I can say: "Beckjord (using 3rd person, as per NPOV) argues that the so-called Bigfoot may be a strange life-form and not a zoological species, and that therefore both skeptics and zoological adhereents may be incorrect as to what these creatures may be."

I can then quote from one of the publications or websites where this is published, as a source.

This is legit.

Further, since none of the editors who appear here are credible,and have no open names, nor degrees, none can decide what publications are reputable or credible, except experts like myself or others who may appear, with names and credibility and degrees.

Note from Misplaced Pages:encyclopedia

"However Misplaced Pages's articles are not necessarily peer reviewed and many of those articles are of a trivial nature. Legitimate concerns have been raised as to the (validity of the writing)."

Further, "Traditional encyclopedias are written by a number of employed text writers, usually people with an academic degree, "

NOTE: ACADEMIC DEGREE. Not high school drop-outs and pizza boys with no names.

and the interactive aspect of the Net does not, does not,

make it OK for just anyone to edit. That is a major, bigtime fallacy of Misplaced Pages. Most of you do not know beans about the Bigfoot topic, and you ought to back off. Especially DG and Android who show, imho, a biased and mal*cious intent, perhaps misguided.

IMHO, you people do not understand NPOV nor NOR. Maybe I did not either, but now I am rewriting my edits so they fit into NPOV. And yes, I CAN quote my own research, as long as I quote a spource where it was published, in print or on the web.

Once again, DreamGuy and Android79, get the H*ll out.

Now, re experts:

Misplaced Pages says:

QUOTE:

"Experts:

The role of expert editors "No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Misplaced Pages welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify). "

So, I, as an expert (30 yrs) CAN quote my work if it is "verifiable", which means written down somewhere in a journal, a newsletter, in private communication to another expert, or a website, INCLUDING MY OWN. All I need to do is use 3rd person.

GOT IT?

beckjordBeckjord 06:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Erik, I found a link that may help you concerning the NPOV. I was digging around and found a link to this section, NPOV tutorial. Found this too, Words to avoid. I do not know if it will help or hinder. Good luck MarcusTCicero 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Beckjord, the key word you are missing in the above is reputable: If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. Your website is not a reputable publication, sorry. You can't just say, "Oh, this is true, as an expert, I vouch for it", post it on your website, and then cite it on Misplaced Pages as a source.

And all this about "rewriting your edits"... if you're rewriting them, why are you simply blindly reverting to a preferred version of the article? android79 14:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks

will look. Now, Marcus, go visit http://www.bigfoot.org OK? \

beckjordBeckjord 07:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

IF..

If you lay off the obscene language, follow Misplaced Pages protocol, this link is for you: Sasquatch Research Center. This links to other Bigfoot links. I may also use this as a external link, once I get it checked out as well. Martial Law 08:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I get these two links checked ? Martial Law 09:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Beware links to sites with no author

and any that list Coleman have to be bad.

98% of all BF sites have NO AUTHOR.

Trust no one who does not exist. Even ML. Mongo has email, why not ML?

edit committee.

E-mail examined today. Awaiting results of examination. Prelim exam found some things that would violate Wiki protocol if stated. Martial Law 09:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Earliest estimate maybe in one week to attempt to use it. Martial Law 09:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Beckjord, ASAP, I will E-mail you. Just awaiting either a "go" signal or a "no-go" signal. Reason it was out is this: Spam overload. I know you often get this mess in your E-mail as well. Know of any anti-spam protocol ?

Martial Law 09:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)