Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 3

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately January 2006 through early February 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Bigfoot/Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. DreamGuy 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

message: As respected Wikians, please add to the intro statement that the alleged Bigfoot has many regional
names, and that the alleged Bigfoot is seen and reported (allegedly) in China,,Russia, Australia
and South America. (Ref. Green, --146,147) this book is in the sources list below in article.
Your goal,I think, is to improve the article and not just be a "reverter".
Bunchofraisins
:OK, I've added:
::Some believe the same creature may be found around the world, under different regional names — proponents of this theory would argue that Bigfoot and the yeti are one and the same. Sightings have allegedly occurred in China, Russia, Australia and South America. (Green 146,147.)
Thanks for putting together something cogent. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Just stay civil, and keep the hard evidence comming. You have to not let your own paranormal experiences get to you at all. I too have seen some socially unacceptable things myself, but I examine everything as a police officer or a doctor would, so that I can effortlessly follow Wikipedian protocol. It also helps if you ask questions as well. Like that old Radio Shack ad says,"You Got Questions, We got Answers", so is Wikipedia. You got questions, Wikipedia has answers. Martial Law 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a Google Search of one found in Malaysia as well. Seen it myself on Google. As stated, keep the hard evidence comming, and remain civil. Martial Law 07:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REQUEST TO BUNCHOFGRAPES AND MORITORI

message: There is very little. No bones, no body. Just tracks, hairs, human contacts.
I can add paranormal accounts, but wiki opponents should NOT take these as proof, since they are not offered as proof. It must be remembered that this is a SOFT SUBJECT, and unproven, and we 
investigators are trying to make sense of it, such as theory on Bigfoot People with NO knowledge of this topic,keep your sticky hands off the page.
beckjordBeckjord 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the HARD evidence comming, User:Beckjord. Wikipedia says to VERIFY what you are stating ? Do it in spades. Get the books, the newspapers,TV and radio commentary, the Documentary shows, credible links as well.
Martial Law 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Right now, Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: hard evidence

message: Go to this link: Malaysian Bigfoot
This is a link from a UPI article about a Bigfoot or related creature seen in Malaysia.Martial Law 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the HARD evidence comming, User:Beckjord. Wikipedia says to VERIFY what you are stating ? Do it in spades. Get the books, the newspapers,TV and radio commentary, the Documentary shows, credible links as well.
Martial Law 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Right now, Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: Malaysian Bigfoot

message: If this article is protected, why is there no protected tag on it?  I assume it's sprotected?  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Beckjord did another one of his preferred-version reverts. android79 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After I re-added the tag, it was removed by Bunchofgrapes.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, must have been an edit conflict thing. The initial removal was indeed Beckjord's. android79 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Protection

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

message: Once again, much of the article lacks reliable sources. 
I added  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  tags, and then we can go through them a section at a time. android79 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: ===See...===
See the Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: This may explain why the religious believe Bigfoot is a demon. Martial Law 04:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do apologise if I did offend you. As stated, was only analyzing some surprising data. Martial Law 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Both are hairy beings. Did the ancient Hebrews spot a Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is some of what I've found while running a Google Check. Martial Law 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This states that, as stated, that those that are religious believe it is a demon. Martial Law 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Bigfoot in religion

message: See the Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: This may explain why the religious believe Bigfoot is a demon. Martial Law 04:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do apologise if I did offend you. As stated, was only analyzing some surprising data. Martial Law 20:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Both are hairy beings. Did the ancient Hebrews spot a Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is some of what I've found while running a Google Check. Martial Law 04:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This states that, as stated, that those that are religious believe it is a demon. Martial Law 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: See...

message: 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)
replies: text: Beckjord, can I politely ask you what exactly out of that comment has any place in the article itself? The articles in Wikipedia do not support the incorporation of opinions that have no basis in facts that cannot be cross referenced. It is a violation of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: Attention DreamGuy and Android79 and Bunch of Grapes

message: 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)
replies: text: *Wikipedia is not a journal for self-published scientific papers.  Ruby 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Who or what is "the Edit Committee" ? Martial Law 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first rule of the Edit Committee is do not talk about the Edit Committee. Ruby 00:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Dude. That's GeoCities. Come on. android79 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about this Bigfoot vanishes Martial Law ? 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: have you even read Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Other than what User:Beckjord has stated, there is'nt much out there at this time. Martial Law 01:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: First...

message: Paranormal News Homepage Martial Law 23:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mongo, can I get this link checked out ? Martial Law 09:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source check please

message: WHAT is a beeping Bigfoot ? Sounds like it is a robot or a automatonic device. Martial Law 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Seen this on User:Beckjord's website. Martial Law 02:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy flying wombats! It must be true--MONGO 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?!!

message: 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)
thread_title: BEEPING BIGFOOT

message: 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)
replies: text: This was one of the very first things we discussed here... It clearly violates the Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External link 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe there's also a bug that makes registered users appear to engage in personal attacks. Ruby 22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL !!!! Almost fell out of the chair. Martial Law 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ! and bug

message: PLease add as you wish to Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  In case numerous editors here have forgotten 

message: 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)
thread_title: Estiban Sarminento

message: 'What is a "talking Bigfoot" and who are these "Skeptics of Bigfoot" ? Martial Law 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, I think I've heard/seen it all. Martial Law 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Talking Bigfoot" ?! / Who are the "Skeptics" ?

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I am well aware of the "Armchair Researchers" out there. MarcusTCicero 16:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I know those people and used to share their views

message: They HAVE NO BASIS. Show me a dead body.
BeckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not interested in what they "believe"

message: What is a =SERIOUS RESEARCHER=  ?
Someone who never saw a Bigfoot, usually.
This is getting amusing.
beckjordBeckjord 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NO NO NO

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I am skeptical

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Apology

message: 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)
replies: text: If links are malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ATT: Links may have "expired". Martial Law 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links, incl. Bigfoot PIXES

message: New Bigfoot website. Martial Law 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can any of these links be used ? Martial Law 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot sites

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

message: will look. Now, Marcus, go visit http://www.bigfoot.org    OK?
\
beckjordBeckjord 07:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, thanks

message: If you lay off the obscene language, follow Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Can I get these two links checked ? Martial Law 09:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IF..

message: ::::How would the Edit committee react if I had found a really good pro-bigfoot site ? Just did. See Re.: about a John Green. Martial Law 10:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RE.:Edit Committee

message: Can I get this link checked ? It is Native American Designations for Bigfoot/Sasquatch Martial Law 08:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, this one:Map of US locating Bigfoot/ Sasquatch Martial Law 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Beckjord, do you know of a John and Mary Green ? They run the above site. Martial Law 09:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial Law, please do not associate Mary Green with John Green. They are two very different people. MarcusTCicero 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sasquatch / Bigfoot and Native Americans' Designations for the creatures

message: :::::And, this one:Map of US locating Bigfoot/ Sasquatch Martial Law 09:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Beckjord, do you know of a John and Mary Green ? They run the above site. Martial Law 09:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial Law, please do not associate Mary Green with John Green. They are two very different people. MarcusTCicero 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot map

message: Site is this John Green's Bigfoot Information Project Can I get someone to examine this site as well ? Martial Law 09:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Green here

message: He is quoted there, but it is run by total newbies who do not do field work.
Their owner is a guy in UK who deletes aLL TALK OF ANY ALTERNATIVE THEORIES 
from his forum. No advanced post-1968 thinking at all.
95% of all BF websites are run by anonymous nobodies who do not do research.
This is not a field like beer making or steel making. It is a weird field full of  idiot teenagers. Virtually none have any competence. Learn this, ML.
Jackson
__________________________________
::::IF link is malfunctioning, go offsite. Martial Law 10:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial Law, the author of the site, Bigfoot Information Project is someone I know and is a valid site. I know the person who authored the website and everything you find there is valid. John Green is the journalist who has written some books, one that is prized by the Bigfoot Research Community is "Sasquatch, Apes among us". He has been keeping a record of sightings and information related to Bigfoot for a very long time. He is well respected by the Bigfoot Research Community. MarcusTCicero 13:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Website not by John Green

message: I've begun adding  to statements that don't have sources (and, in some cases, to statements that did have sources, but were unclear). I've focused on statements that are probably the most contentious; ideally, every statement would have a reference, but some of the more "obvious" or common-knowledge facts can do without for now.
I did this up until the "Evidence" section. This section needs a major re-write, as does most of the rest of the article from that section on. It reads far too much like a point-counterpoint between skeptics and believers. Instead of offering "for" arguments and then countering them with "against" arguments for each separate concept, we should synthesize the arguments from both sides into a coherent paragraph or two. Thoughts?
::I would try to keep them separate yet equal to each other. I think it would be a little difficult for the average reader to differentiate the two. MarcusTCicero 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've combined our edits. --Every1blowz 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Wow, you're quick! android79 16:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Once again, Beckjord has blind-reverted all changes back to a preferred version, with the edit summary "Newbies to Bigfoot should discuss their edit issues with me before going ahead. In email, or talk page. I am not going away, face it, and I am the only expert in Wiki on this." Beckjord, along with a few edits you may have found objectionable, you also reverted countless formatting and spelling corrections. You do not own this article. android79 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more blind reverting from Beckjord 

message: there is no working things out with you maniacs.
We on the commitee will return in rotating shifts, and undo all you did.
Over and over and over. You will "win" only five in or 30 min at a time. then, BINGO,
back it goes. 
Make edit suggestions in talk pages, and we may approve some. Then WE will put them in.
And yes, we do own this article. 
Jackson
In that case, I have semi-protected this article. android79 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot Wiki war

message: Wikipia is a general encyclopedia, not a scientific journal and not a 
scholarly encyclopedia.
This the reputability of references is not as strict.
Remember this Android79.
Paul Jones
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:Would you please stop throwing in lines of exclamation points and other symbols? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Encyclopedia

message: Lost your E-mail user:Beckjord. Martial Law 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That message would be much more appropriate at User talk:Beckjord. This isn't Beckjord's page, no matter what he may think. Please don't treat it like it is. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will comply. Martial Law 01:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost E-mail

message: Semi-protected again ?! I need a tylenol the size of Bigfoot. Martial Law 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we had Bigfoot poop as big as a Tylenol even, we'd be on to something.  Ruby 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protected-Again ?!

message: Call off this new war, or the Admins may permanently lock down the article. This is the Wikipedia version of Martial Law. In this, only the Admins may edit this article, and other editors, such as myself will have to beg them to accept any suggestions, and hope that they'll add them to the article. Martial Law 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do apologise to the other editors for any inconviences this may have caused. Martial Law 01:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you're wrong. This article is semi-protected. Any sufficiently "old" registered user may edit this article. android79 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Full protection similar to what I've indicated ? Martial Law 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what is full protection like ? Martial Law 02:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one except a sysop or higher can edit.--Toffile 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But generally, under normal full protection, sysops aren't supposed to make content changes either. Instead, discussion proceeds on the talk page until whatever dispute causing an edit war is resolved. In theory. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re.:War

message: Hey, I did some poking around to figure out what school was meant by "University of Maryland" (there are five schools with this name).  It turns out, nobody at any of the five has any record of this person as either faculty or student.  Further, when I clicked the citation, it went to a 404.  I strongly suggest this reference be removed as it is, unequivocally, bogus. -James Howard (talk/web) 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you at least tell me where the comment is, in what section as I couldn't find it.--MONGO 04:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Near the bottom of the 1970s section. -Every1blowz 04:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen I. Rosen 

message: 1970s anthro professor at U MD College Park. He did work with Ellis Kerly.
see website magazine article that Bishonen keeps deleting.
http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/b&h.html Frontiers of Science Magazine re BF hairs.
zuzy q
:::::How was this blood sample obtained ? Someone shoot one of these creatures ?! Martial Law 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosen

message: ?! Martial Law 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?!

message: *Soldier engaged in Military training spots 3 Bigfoot
*US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND FBI ANALYZE UNKNOWN HAIRS. CONCLUDE THEY'RE FROM UNKNOWN CREATURE
:::As stated two more military/govt. reports. Martial Law 07:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should a subsection, such as "Military Sightings" be placed to cover sightings,encounters by soldiers ? Martial Law 07:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FBI report implies that Bigfoot may be real. Martial Law 07:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note:The soldier is trained to react to anything that can be a threat, thus he/she will fire on a Bigfoot if he/she spots one. Wikipedians who are either active duty soldiers,  ex-soldiers will tell you this. Martial Law 19:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two more military reports, one startling FBI report

message: ===Hawaiian Bigfoot===
Can this be inserted ?
:Source:
::Obake Files, author is Glen Grant,publisher is Mutual Publishing
::
::Data: In 1973, Rob Carleson and a friend, both college students, hiking in Whitmore Village,
::Near the Wahiawa Mountains(Oahu), encountered a 8 foot tall bigfoot, which left 24 in. tracks.
::Frightened, both subjects ran from the creature.
::::::Can I get this checked ? Martial Law 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Following Template protocol only

message: Can this be inserted ?
:Source:
::Obake Files, author is Glen Grant,publisher is Mutual Publishing
::
::Data: In 1973, Rob Carleson and a friend, both college students, hiking in Whitmore Village,
::Near the Wahiawa Mountains(Oahu), encountered a 8 foot tall bigfoot, which left 24 in. tracks.
::Frightened, both subjects ran from the creature.
::::::Can I get this checked ? Martial Law 20:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawaiian Bigfoot

message: LA Wookie 1
LA Wookie 2
Listed as the Honey Island Swamp Monster and/or as the Louisiana Wookie
LA Wookie 3
Since this creature is in this area, figured that these should have a look at this. NO offense, apologise if I had been in error. Martial Law 04:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Louisiana Wikipedians look @ this as well ?

message: Tons of Newspaper and Magazine articles
about this thing. Can this be placed ? Martial Law 08:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the website, Bigfoot Encounters, should be a link. MarcusTCicero 10:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I place it ? Martial Law 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tons of articles

message: Please see this link: Answers.com and Bigfoot
This is all about the creature, even has a section as to what to do if YOU spot one.
Can I get this link, the military links, the newspaper links examined, persuant to the s-protect protocol ? Martial Law 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, MartialLaw, that's a copy (well 90% of it is) of an older version of this page. If the links still aren't in the article, they were removed for some reason or another. This also applies to the "What if you see one" section as well. So, no I wouldn't think that link would be appropriate.--Toffile 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers.com and Bigfoot

message: Witnesses can contact the BIRO group, at http://www.bigfoot.org which is a 
No-kill group.
Admins are asked to restore this link. In fact, ML should add this link himself.
You do not need to kiss anyone's @@@ here. Be your own man.
After all, "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Right? Jump in,
get your feet wet, you know as much as anyone here on edits. Go,ML, go !
bozo2
:As long as that s-protect thing is there, all suggestions are to be brought here, as long as that war is still going on. Martial Law 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The s-protect thing is the thing with a padlock in it. Martial Law 09:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: absolutely yes

message: What is "BIRO" ? This is for the record, no more, no less. Martial Law 09:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record, no more, no less.

message: http://www.bigfoot.org
Bigfoot Researchers & Investigators Org.
BIRO.
Beckjord
:OK, I went and read all of http://www.bigfoot.org. I'll summarize it for those who don't feel like visiting it themselves: It's a page with a tiled embossed bigfoot image as its background. (Very 1996.) Titled "Bigfoot museum", the page has an odometer-style visitor counter ("You are visitor [179926]") and the following text: 
:: "CHECK OUT THIS BIGFOOT SITE!! Take me to the BIGFOOT! Does He exist?    Send us your personal story     send your story to  IBELIEVE  (at) bigfoot dot org"
:That's it, the whole site. Why are you wasting our time, Beckjord? Or is it the linked-to http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot that we're supposed to read? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good idea to "read" website

message: I finally located the fact that Stephen Rosen was an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Maryland... and that he did publish a book titled "Introduction to the Primates - Living and Fossil"...I need Beckjord to no explain to me what is in this book that is significant to Bigfoot, before I spend my money and buy it...it is not in print anymore...so it'll be used.--MONGO 10:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Rosen 

message: Glad to see you finally found that Dr Rosen is real. :-) 
His book was cited to let you know he is an author and respected by others in his field.
He has more hits in Google due to his Bigfoot hair analysis,using hairs I provided, 
than anything else he ever did. He is now retired.
Beckjord
:Okay, but what did he find from the hair sample...can you quote his findings, and cite them to the book title and page number for us? If a publish academic made a statement and we can reference it, then we can use it in the article--MONGO 07:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosen

message: "Wickipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can, but shouldn't, edit."
Beckjord
Listen Beckjord, if you want to edit the article at least edit it correctly. For one thing, your referencing format is an ugly mess, and it isn’t even compatible or consistent with the rest of the article, not to mention with Wikipedia guidelines. And it’s hard to read. Here’s what you’ve added repeatedly before it’s been deleted…
:::Sightings have allegedly occurred in China, Russia, Australia and South America [Reference John Green,pp46-47, for all locations.]Also, Hawaii has such reports.(Reference :P.147,"The Obake Files", Glen Grant,1996, Mutual Publishers,]
Beckjord, seriously, can’t you at least even bother to put in spaces when needed and use the appropriate Harvard referencing format? Is that really too much to ask? Would using two parentheses on either side really kill you? Or are you just too lazy to do it yourself and expect others to clean up the formatting for you? 
If that’s the way you think and behave Beckjord than frankly none of your “contributions” are really needed. 
Anyway, this time I went ahead and kept what you wrote except formatted it correctly. Do us all a favor and go read Wikipedia:Citing sources for next time, okay?
Also, I’ve temporarily removed…
:::*Beckjord,Jon-Erik, "The Bigfoot Evidence", pp.22-29, Frontiers of Science Magazine.May 1981. 
:::*Beckjord,Jon-Erik, "Bigfoot's Weird Blood", pp.92-96, Fte Magazine, Aug. 1989,ISBN 0014-8776
Because I’m not sure what it’s supposed to reference and you didn’t bothered to clarify yourself when you edited the article. Tell me what those two contributions reference and I’ll add them back if other Wikipedians don't mind.
Secondly, I went ahead and removed your website from the external links section. Why? Because it was nothing short of your POV ramblings and it didn’t even have very good photos of an alleged Sasquatch like it promised (hardly a gallery), which is very misleading to anyone who’d actually visit the site. --Every1blowz 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia

message: I'm busy watching the superbowl, but I was told of this by you and I send in this comment:
1) I do years of research and I do not need to learn the Harvard system of referenceing as well, so it is very nice when you take the time to use your expertise in that to clean up. Thanks.
Posted by sam 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.139.148 (talk • contribs) 02:51, February 6, 2006  (UTC)
:Yes, nice. Hey Sam, did Beckjord also ask you, by email, to vandalize my three FAs? , ,  —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Email from Beckjord to user for this day

message: I haven't found much...but here is essentially what I have been able to dig up. Vincent Sarich was a Professor at UC Berkley...I can find no reference that he ever met Erik Beckjord aside from what Erik has told me. Beckjord claims that Sarich anaylized blood retrived from a 
[piece of glass from an Indian house window on the Lummi Indian} (edit)
reservation. According to Beckjord, Sarich identified the blood as being that from an "unknown higher primate". Beckjord then had a Dr. Stephen Rosen and a Dr. Ellis R. Kerley (both at the University of Maryland) examine hair samples associated with the same blood as well as unknown hair samples from at least 3 other locations and they, according to Beckjord, attributed them to "unknown primate". Tom Moore of the Wyoming Fish and Game lab also identified the hair samples as coming from an unknown primate. Without trying to, in any way, insult Beckjord, I need more than a link to Fate magazine..
{whatdo you expect after 20 years? Kerley is
dead already.)
:what I need is for just one of these folks to publically state that these events did indeed happen 
[indeed happen?]  I do not
fabricate data.
and that hopefully somehwere in a more mainstream source, the findings were published. I am looking into this as I studied under Dr. Kerley at the University of Maryland, and know that he is one of the founding fathers, per se, of modern forensic anthropology. Dr. Kerley is deceased and Tom Moore retired from the Wyoming job he held for 4 decades just last year...I am  not sure of Sarich or Rosen, but Rosen did leave the University of Maryland in the mid 1970's. I am attempting to contact Tom Moore as he was apparently also going to present his findings at a sort of Bigfoot conference, but was "ordered" to not do so by his superiors with the state of Wyoming. In a nutshell, I see no reason that this may be a true series of events, though they do not in themselves prove of the existence of Bigfoot, or of anything. But we are talking about mainstream, reputable scientists that certainly have weight in their professions. Beckjord, would it be possible for you to scan into your computer and then email me the front cover and idex page of the copy of Fate magazine and the other one you mention, along with the text of the articles that you wrote? I will continue to try and track down more information on these events as they are noteworthy in article space I believe, but I need more evidence.--MONGO 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Findings on Rosen, Kerley and Sarich et al. according to Beckjord

message: I'm not lying. Sarich lives 10 miles from me now. He never put his findings into writing to keep HIS job, but he stated it to me, in his lab, in 1977. You had best learn now that
these people __do not__ put such things on paper
for fear of job loss.
But they said they wouid stand by it if anyone called them,etc.  They
never backed out.
Now, I can MAIL YOU, EGADS!!! Copies of the articles. Later, I can make jpgs of the pages.
But hell, you can call up FATE MAG and ask them. 
What is implied here is that you
have to get more proof to see if I am lying. I do not lie about such things. I have 
my Eagle Scout rep. to uphold. Article has been on my site ten yrs.
Send me a fax number and I will fax you the front pages.  I see nothing sacred about the "privacy of the internet"... Re people have phone and fax. DO YOU?
Email me your fax.
Call me at 415-289-2277.  
BTW.. there are no "mainstream" sources. The Mainstream is very careful to NOT TOUCH BIGFOOT WITH A 50 FT POLE.     Dig?   Ditto ufos. Dig??? Got it??? I was damn lucky to get those scientists to speak at all.
Want copy of artricles?
Send large SASE to me at box 9502,Berkeley,CA 94709.
THIS IS HOW RESEARCH IS DONE, not google.
Beckjord
:Beckjord...I do not say you are lying...and I fully understand that mainstream scientists are not likely to publish their "opinions" without fear of reprosals from their peers in the academic circles...no doubt science moves at a glacial pace at times. Can you track down Tom Moore of the Wyoming Fish and Game Lab? He apparently retired last year or the year before. I am also interested in how the editors feel about this inclusion of a citation from Beckjord...it has nothing to do with wormholes or ufo related items and does apparently involve well known and reputable scientists.--MONGO 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Beckjord is correct, I am dealing with a case in which a soldier is involved, and if this was reported, this soldier will be courts-martialled. The locus of what I'm dealing with is a crop circle located in woody weeds, and a bigfoot incident reported in 2000. Since I'm doing the investigation myself, I can't post any of it here due to the WP:NOR protocol. Martial Law 08:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey Mongo

message: User:Beckjord, can you place all of your contact info here ? You said that people should contact you IF they had a run-in with a Bigfoot,UFO, that sort of thing. Martial Law 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contact info.:For the record

message: At 0200 hrs, EST, on 2-7-06, the History Channel has presented some material concerning Bigfoot and other monsters. Go to this link: Decoding The Past: Monsters
The featured creatures incl. Bigfoot. Thought you guys may want to know this. Martial Law 07:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History Channel

message: One link says that a Bigfoot attacked 3 people, killing one, the other is for the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Organization. These are:
This link says Bigfoot attacked 3, kills one. Also says it may be a animal.
Gulf Coast Bigfoot research Organization Martial Law 07:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can these be placed ? Martial Law 07:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See: RE.: Are They Dangerous in the first link. Martial Law 07:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the pix above blurry ? Martial Law 07:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two links

message: Forensic doc says Bigfoot is real !. Can this link be used ? Martial Law 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forensic Doc says Bigfoot REAL - From National Geographic

message: From a Hunting Magazine: Hunting Bigfoot Martial Law 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I get all 4 links checked out persuant to this S-Protect tag ? 
Martial Law 08:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From a Hunting/Sports magazine: Hunting Bigfoot

message: I am not sure why you have links to Greg Long on this article but I think they would belong more with the Patterson-Gimlin film page. Since that book was more about that film. MarcusTCicero 10:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Greg Long Links