Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 1

message: There hasn't been any discussion regarding the image edit war, so I am starting it.  Lizard King's sketch would be better than nothing, IMO, even though it is clunky and not very well done.  The new image from the Patterson film may have copyright issues -- seems like fair use, but I dunno... Tuf-Kat 21:39, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
I haven't found any copyrights with regards to that image, but I admit I haven't done a 100% thorough search. The image is used on numerous websites already. - UtherSRG 23:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: could you upload this image unter Wikimedia Commons again. I like to use it in the german wikipedia. -- Horst Frank - (213.39.143.167 12:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I had removed the see alsos because 
#the relevant ones are already in the text
#the rest are irrelevant. Those interested in them will have gone to cryptozoology and found them there. 
- UtherSRG 23:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is possible that bigfoot was the first innovator of the wooden air plane or that he stole space ships from extraterrestrials who crashed in indonesia and flew to the Americas, though that would not be ethical of the mythical hominid.
— No-One Jones (talk) 05:38, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: I've merged the article Etymology of the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch with the Bigfoot article. Here is the comment from that page. Robinoke 22:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged From: Talk:Etymology of the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch

message: The article has two footnotes but no reference to them. Please restore the references or cut the footnote section. Gdr 15:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: According to the article:
:It has since been allegedly proven by Primate experts at the University of Sweden that the video is clearly not of a human. This is based on a new technique they developed which uses a computer model of a human's muscle structure placed over the video.
There is no such thing as the "University of Sweden". u p p l a n d 17:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "University of Sweden"

message: I find the section "Problems with eyewitness reports" not strong enough. There are thousands of solid testimonies. Just saying that these may be confusions sounds very lame. The article must state that there are many more equally solid eyewitnesses of ghosts, flying saucers, and angels or fairies. Only this kind of comparison can explain why scientists customarily dismiss the "facts" gathered by huge groups of good-faith persons. If you omit it, the layman reader will think that explaining testimonies as confusion is bad-faith (and stupid).
: Well, you should change it then. Be bold. The Singing Badger 17:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The real problem with eyewitness reports

message: There is nothing I see that tells me how to add a comment.
Please advise.
Also, how does one edit the article and not have the changes wiped out by someone one else who knows nothing on the subject?\\
Also, someone sent me a message cvalling me a vandal, and then they wiped out my changes,
How do I reach such people?
CONTACT METHODS ARE NOT MADE CLEAR.
Beckjord
MAILTO:rudy who is at stealthaccess.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
New comment: 90% of the Bigfoot article is erroneous and written by someone with little real knowledge of the subject. There are no legit quotable sources since the editors of the related journals are very biased and take only one point of view, and reject any new info that disputes that POV. I tried to edit the piece, which begs for editing, and some j**k deleted all my edits
even though I am a very seasoned researcher and former museum curator on this subject.
Therefore, consider 90% of the text as false or in error, because I know or did know,
virtually all the authors and researchers. The best known writers have never seen a Bigfoot,
and I have, 5x. The best known skeptics do no field work, except Bob Sheaffer of CSICOP, and he only four days.
This stuff about No Original Research is absurd... when someone who is just back from a research trip cannot post about it in an edit, by armchair writers can, something is wrong in Denmark.
I have no peer review because only two or three researchers are my peers, in the true sense of the word. Peter Guttilla is one, Henry Franzoni is another, Brian Smith is another.
To get the truth, visit http://www.bigfoot.org   or  wwwbigfootdotorg
For some odd reason, it seems giving your contact info is evil. Readers may contact me, and/or go on my forums  http://www.bigfootforums.net 
I welcome info privately from people who understand the games played here better than I do.
BeckjordBeckjord 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to go read about how this projects works. Start with the Community Portal link on the left. Learn the policies and methods of contributing here before trying to contribute, and do not insist that your edits are better than everyone else's, especially when you are clearly violating all sorts of policies left and right. WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, etc. Good luck. DreamGuy 07:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment by [[User:Beckjord]]

message: When a area reports a bigfoot/Sasquatch, the locals grab their guns, and if they see it themselves,
they will shoot it, to kill it. Anyone perpetrating a hoax, such as wearing a "gorrilla suit" just may end up getting a Darwin Award real quick. Can you imagine someone in a suit like that getting hit by a .4-10, a .44,.45, a 30-o-6 because some else thought that they've seen a bigfoot ?Martial Law 01:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEAD BIGFOOT BODY/GUNS/  When..

message: Go to Bigfoot Pixes
Also, go to Mysteries Megasite: Bigfoot Links and Jeff Rense has some Bigfoot related material on "Sasquatch: New Daylight Bigfoot Photos ?". Martial Law 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Bigfoot pixes (?)

message: How can I make an edit to the Bigfoot page,and not have someone call this vandalism?
I know far more about this topic than the orignal author.
Re shooting and rpgs, etc, Bigfoot cannot be killed based on 50 years of statistics. No record of any verifiablke shooting or killing.
Janet and Colin Bord - "The Bigfoot Casebook" . Please add to pages. If I do, I am called a vandal.
Re Bigfoot photos - please add to page - see more photos at http://www.bigfoot.org
Please answer. Thanks.
Jon-Erik Beckjord, BA,MBA, Director of three CZ Museums, and Director of the Bigfoot Investigators & Researchers Org.  http://www.bigfoot.org
beckjord205.208.227.49 19:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bigfoot Field Research Organization Homepage.Martial Law 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beckjord asks

message: Go to Texas Bigfoot Homepage and to East Texas Bigfoot Homepage . These organizations have reported people shooting @ the creature.Martial Law 22:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bigfoot Field Research Organization Homepage.Martial Law 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Beckjord - People Shooting @ Bigfoot

message: I'd like to know what biased skeptic is putting all this SH*T about yetis and bears and Bigfoot, and why you people let this happen?
Martial Law, DANIELCD -- HOLD THIS PAGE!
beckjordBeckjord 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note I am not in any way a "page holder" for Beckjord, and I'm sorry if he sees it that way. --DanielCD 16:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: idiot edits

message: quote:  Has any Wikipedians seen/encountered one or more of these creatures ? Martial Law 01:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting Bigfoot and has anyone here seen one?

message: Can you please add more external links? 
http://www.bigfoot.org
http://www.bigfootforums.net (discussion)
http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoottribephotos   (photos of Bigfoot)
http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pgfilmframesinseries (stills from famous BF movie film)
thanks for helping.
beckjordBeckjord 09:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: request of admins who edit here

message: Any Wikipedians encountering these things. I have noted the report below.Martial Law 07:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Wikipedians Encountering Bigfoot / Sasquatch

message: I was on my way to work one morning.  There is a great deal of wooded areas on the route I take.  I always watch for deer due to the large number of vehicle/deer accidents that take place in the area.  On this particular morning I was driving along jamming on the radio and watching for deer.  On the side of the road in the edge of the woods stood something about ten or twelve feet tall and it had long dark hair covering its body.  It just stood there and watched me drive past.  I believe the reason nobody finds dead bodies of a bigfoot is because the are dimensional travelers.  I also believe they are shape-shifters and that is why we cannot see them unless it is an accident or they intend on somebody seeing them.
I was on Kentucky State Route 164 between mile markers 4 and 3 headed toward Canton in Trigg County.
--Bumpusmills1 04:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was personally contacted by a representative of Bigfoot Field Research Organization this evening 19 December 2005.  The rep. ask many questions about the incident and further inquired if I'd be willing to talk to him in person.  I agreed.  I may even get the opportunity to show him where I saw it.  I did not realize just how close I was to the creature until I was actually being interviewed.  I was in my car, but I was no more than 50 feet from a living, breathing creature known a bigfoot etc.  --Bumpusmills1 05:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigfoot Sighting 

message: It is to be noted that most, if not all reports mention that the creature has, to be polite,
a extremely offensive smell to it. The smell is like feces,rotting garbage, dead animals, rotten eggs, sewage, worse all combined, and extremely strong. Has anyone noted this ?
Several Bigfoot sites has noted the horrid smell.Martial Law 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was driving along about 45 miles per hour I did not smell anything. Additionally I may note that I'd just past a cow pasture so I'd just gotten a nose full of that.   --Bumpusmills1 12:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smell 

message: Please add this to page.
Research shows that Bigfoot does not smell _per se_, but rather projects smells
as a message or a deterrent.  The smelles it sends out, can be skunk, dead animal, feces,urine,
garbage,wet dog,etc. This writer has smelled three such smells in succession while
finding himself unable to get out of a sleeping bag (paralysis) to check the source. Once 
the smells ended, he was able to get up. He has also smelled wet dog at the Lummi res.,
and dead animal on Mt Hood while discussing Bigfoot with a Kidnapee. When the smell itself 
was discussed, and it was decided to go in back of a building to look, the smell immediately ceased. In Daughtery,OK,at the home of a witness, every night at 7:30 a smell of "skunk"
happened, usually during a discussion of Bigfoot. Skunks do not keep a schedule. The smell was then called "the skunk that is not a skunk". Bigfoot itself, does not stink.
Please add to page.
beckjordBeckjord 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Smell

message: Please add to page.
http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse (explanation for bigfoot elusiveness)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormholes
http://www.bigfootforums.net (discussion forum with investigators on it.)
thanks.
beckjordBeckjord 20:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Please add:
" One researcher suggests that readers beware of any Bigfoot website that has no 
stated author with a real and checkable name. Many Bigfoot websites are set up by anonymous
teenagers with no names and no experience. Anyone can publish on the net, and many websites 
have no validity. One very large forum are actually run by a
foreigner who has never stepped foot in the American woods,and who caters to retrograde 
ideas about Bigfoot, and bans more advanced thinking. Thus, non-researchers flock to this forum." source : http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot
beckjordBeckjord 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: warnings to readers re websites

message: " The major authors on Bigfoot all admit they have never actually seen a Bigfoot."
Source - John Green, Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, Grover Krantz.
beckjordBeckjord 06:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: add info to page

message: I'd like to know what biased skeptic is putting all this SH*T about yetis and bears and Bigfoot, and why you people let this happen?
Martial Law, DANIELCD -- HOLD THIS PAGE!
beckjordBeckjord 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: idiot edits

message: Whomever started it was a skeptic at heart and hates the topic.
So much to change, so little time, and DreamGuy lurks, waiting to pounce.
:-)
beckjordBeckjord 08:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My god how this page needs help!

message: Dreamguy did NOT, REPEAT:did  NOT  edit anything to do w/ bears. He DID remove info. placed to have people who had seen/encountered a Bigfoot intended for their use to report said encounters.Martial Law 08:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "People who had seen/encountered a Bigfoot" is a highly biased view of things. It is more accurate (and Wikipedia:NPOV, read it, follow it, live it) to say that people claim to have seen something which they interpret as being a Bigfoot. A section on reporting "said encounters" is highly unencyclopedic and outright takes the side of those people. DreamGuy 16:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigation of Bear Edits

message: Just change it to say "alleged sightings" -- we do that often. (No sighting is absolute.)
Not a problem.
beckjordBeckjord 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, modify

message: @There are some people who dislike any intruders and will shoot them for tresspassing.:
Surely that can't be legal? Do people really shoot others just for trespassing? I can hardly believe it. Shinobu 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooting people for trespassing? 

message: of course country people can do it, and some do. Posted land.
beckjordBeckjord 04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that whole section... it was quite unrelated to the entire topic and an extremely weak argument, and it's not Wikipedia:NPOV at all to let the article turn into 90% content in favor of Bigfoot, 3% skeptical views, and then 7% more with absurd arguments against the skeptical view. The whole thing should not take sides at all, and presenting long quotes from self-proclaimed Bigfoot experts and outright whole sections arguing against the skeptics is a clear violation. I almost think we need to throw a NPOV tag on this thing because it's so incredibly one sided already, and here we have a couple of people above trying to push it even farther off into propoing Bigfoot as real. DreamGuy 22:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: under what rock do you....

message: This is NOT about proving the existance of Bigfoot. It states that when people spot some really weird thing, they will shoot at it, and contrary to what you said, SEVERAL Bigfoot websites and data sites have in their Sightings report listings of people who have actually shot at this thing. IF this was a hoax, the hoaxer would end up dead or in jail. You do not waste valuable ammunition shooting at myths. Martial Law 02:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you saw something like that comming after you, your loved ones, what would you do ? Martial Law 04:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is being shot at, if Bigfoot is a myth ?..

message: There are no neutral observers, and after one sees a Bigfoot, it is impossible to be neutral.
The quotes are based on field work, not just opinion. Let's try this:
1) researcher Brian Smith finds and videotapes tracks in snow that suddenly end.
This is an event.
2) writer XXX states that this could mean going into a hole in space-time. That is opinion.
So we just label each entry.
try it.
beckjordBeckjord 04:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV not possible for this topic

message: This subject is NOT supposed to be 50% pro skeptic (who do NO research) and 50% pro bigfooter,
only some of whom do research. This is not what true balance means. If the facts and events are
80% pro Bigfoot, then, SO BE IT. The skeptics have no case except to say there is no body.
Then they say the para idea in not proven. OK, so what? We are working on it. It is were up to 
DreamGuy and some others, the entire page would be dumped. They do not LIKE bigfoot.
Too weird.
beckjordBeckjord 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean the other 7%? Shinobu 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The way it was worded it looks like the 7% absurd arguments against the skeptical view are part of the 90% of pro-bigfoot content - and is thus missing from the grand total. Shinobu 02:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DreamGuy has wrong concept

message: If the edit fighting continues, I'm simply going to revert to DreamGuy's last edit and protect the page. Then seek mediation for you guys. You guys simply can't tailor an article to your views. --DanielCD 22:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Edit warring]]

message: Not DreamGuy -- he is not qual. to edit.
beckjordBeckjord 03:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just revert to my version and freeze.

message: the creatures tend to shapeshift and be different each time. 
beckjordBeckjord 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: there are few accepted facts

message: I am one. There are hardly any others. Most of the books are passe', except for The Bigfoot Files, by Peter Guttilla, who has five sightings. I have 5/6 sightings dependingm on how you define them. The field is in flux, and virtually no reliable sources exist. You can quote my book in progress. This is not engfineering, or Chinese pottery. This is a paranormal subject.
And that mere fact bothers people like DreamGuy and others. To them, it is messy.
beckjordBeckjord 03:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reliable sources

message: I am one and very very few of the other "experts" really are experts. Most of them never saw a Bigfoot, do not do any field work, and are working with outdated assumptions. There are 
virtually NO notable experts. Merely writing a book does not make you an expert.
I do not offer opinions, I offer analysis of what actually happens in the field, outdoors.
it is not biased, it is simply what has happend. You guys actually think  this a settled field, like Chinese pottery. It is NOT.  And  I find uninformed people are editing. I am a PRIMARY 
INVESTIGATOR, and you are d*mn lucky I am here.
beckjordBeckjord 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is a "reputable" Bigfoot site? --DanielCD 01:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: notable experts

message: any site with no author and no name of any staff, is deceptive.
beckjordBeckjord 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: deceptive

message: It is any site that retards who think bigfoot is some lost ape will like.
98% of ALL bigfoot sites are run by unknown nameless people. The BFRO site is run by 
a fraud and a rip off artist, who has lost 40 of his best investigators due to his crimes.
UNIVERSITIES DO NOT RUN BIGFOOT SITES. ok?
However, we have five PhDs who are on our board of advisors. http://www.bigfoot.org 
Now, re Martial Law and his comments on how dangerous it is to run around in the country in a BF suit, I think we get the point, and I put in an edit that made this brief.
Wikipedia is NOT a print volume, like Brittanica, and it is, like it or not, a WEBSITE.
Thus it can offer links as to where to go to report a sighting.
beckjordBeckjord 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputable site

message: what the heck does this really MEAN and who does one do it?
Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it. The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists. Your changes are shown in the lower text area. You will have to merge your changes into the existing text. Only the text in the upper text area will be saved when you press "Save page".
Totally NOT clear.
Like lots of wiki.
beckjordBeckjord 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki gobbledegook

message: How do We settle these two complaints ?Martial Law 05:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How do we settle ''BOTH'' dissimilar complaints ?

message: Complaint by Martial Law is SETTLED. Martial Law 05:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint Settled

message: ===Weirdness in Wiki photo===
In the frame 352 shown on the Bigfoot page, some may not the large skull, and two other large human heads, just to the right of the Bigfoot in the background. Now, remember, only some will
see it...not all. (As is usually the case.) This film is full of this stuff.
beckjord~~
===npov flawed===
Quoting a skeptic who does no research is an empty quote, with no basis.
Saying Bob Sheaffer believes there is no Bigfoot, is worthless, since Bob does not do
field work. It is an empty sham.The NPOV article implies that there are two sides, and they 
can be both quoted, AS IF THEY WERE EQUAL.  What if they are not equal? What if you are quoting
a PhD vs a ten year old kid? This is not addressed.
beckjordBeckjord 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beckjord comments

message: Quoting a skeptic who does no research is an empty quote, with no basis.
Saying Bob Sheaffer believes there is no Bigfoot, is worthless, since Bob does not do
field work. It is an empty sham.The NPOV article implies that there are two sides, and they 
can be both quoted, AS IF THEY WERE EQUAL.  What if they are not equal? What if you are quoting
a PhD vs a ten year old kid? This is not addressed.
beckjordBeckjord 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: npov flawed

message: Tell us what Bigfoot books or articles you have read. TV does not count.
beckjordBeckjord 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DreamGuy - is he qualified?

message: I added info re sighitngs, for new photos and videos, and somene, maybe DG , erased them.
Disgusted with Wiki system. This sucks!
beckjordBeckjord 08:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm pissed

message: Says:  section is HUGELY biased, so trying to fix... but, really, how is it fair to have supporter views, then a small bit of skepticism, then lengthy response?)
The answer is that the skeptics, I know them, in person, DO NO RESEARCH. The supporters do.
What the skeptics say often has no merit, except for noting lack of a body, while the supporters
often based thier comments on field work. Hence, skeptical imput has LITTLE VALUE. Do you expect NO RESEARCH to be of equal value to ACTUAL RESEARCH? Get real, Guy.
beckjordBeckjord 10:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing but personally insulting everyone who disagrees with you to try to discount what they say. Skeptics do plenty of research, that's how we know DNA tests that have been done have always shown a real, known animal and not a Bigfoot. Sure beats people inventing stuff up in their heads and proclaiming themselves experts. DreamGuy 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reply to DreamGuy

message: What is the status as far as the page being unprotected? --DanielCD 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you worked out a compromise? Can you promise to stop edit warring? If you think it'll work, I can unprotect it now and see how things work out.--Sean|Black 21:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: What about DNA evidence ? Thought I ask before insertion into article. Heard about that, from other souces, not including User:Beckjord's source, that DNA of unknown origin has been found.
Can this be explained ? Martial Law 02:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA

message: 1. It appears to be some kind of ape or humanoid.
2. It REALLY stinks. (only as a projected weapon, like skunk does)
3. It is LARGE.
4. It has fur all over it.
5. It makes bizarre noises.
6. Fur color varies, most statements indicate a brown,black, white fur color.
7. It is extremely STRONG.
8. Known disposition varies, mostly, they do NOT seek confrontation with humans.
9. Civilian weapons either have no effect or the creature continues walking until it dies from the inflicted gunfire. I have NOT heard any military accounts. Some military bases encompass several thousand kilo-hectares of land. A Bernudi Shotgun slug can go through several automotive engine blocks. The military doesn't like any intruders of any sort.
Does not die. Shooting has no effect. Often the shooter is paralyzed and cannot shoot.
10. It is some kind of omnivore, and will raid farms, gardens and ranches,trash cans, compost piles, etc. to obtain food, if there is not enough food in the natural environment, as reports on several websites indicate. Note: there is not enough food in environment to support
a 16,000 calorie per day need, and still allow BF never to be seen grzing as bears do.
Hence, paranormal.  
These are the known facts. Martial Law 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Known Facts

message: Hunters, Park rangers, farmers, ranchers, animal control, zoologists, other outdoors personnel are familiar with bears. These things are NOT bears. What's up with this ? 
Shades of the Robertson Panel protocol for Bigfoot ? Martial Law 04:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychological ?

message: Here, in Wikipedia, we have INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHOM TO CALL:
"Call for emergency services
The next step is to activate emergency medical services by calling for help using a local emergency telephone number, such as 911 in Canada or the United States, 999 in the UK, 112 in most of continential Europe, 000 in Australia and 111 in New Zealand. Operators will generally require the caller's name and location and some information on person that is being called about (level of consciousness, injuries, name if known, chronic medical illnessess if known).
If you ask bystanders to call an ambulance for you, make sure they report back to you once released by the emergency operator to confirm that the call has been made. See Call for help.
Also note that in some circumstances, such as in remote areas or on the battlefield, outside help may be unavailable. The skill of wilderness first aid covers other measures including evacuation, but is no substitute for a medical professional if one can be located."
ALSO- Wiki article on BIOLOGICAL WARFARE:
"{Protective measures
The primary civil defense against biological weaponry is to wash one's hands whenever one moves to a different building or set of people, and avoid touching door knobs, walls, the ground and one's mouth and nose. Washing literally sends the germs down the drain.
More exotic methods include decontamination, usually done with household chlorine bleach (5% solution of sodium hypochlorite). One useful decontamination is to leave shoes in an entranceway and make people wade and handwash in a footbath of bleach. Another useful technique is to periodically decontaminate floors and door knobs.
Medical methods of civil defense include stockpiles of antibiotics and vaccines, and training for quick, accurate diagnoses and treatment. Many weaponized diseases are unfamiliar to general practitioners.
Positive pressure shelters are possible but not cost-effective except for the most important installations. This is because in most attacks, the agent will disperse in a long narrow ellipse downwind from the release point. Persons outside the ellipse will not be affected except by secondary infection. Persons within the release ellipse cannot be helped by civil defense measures. They need medical diagnosis and treatment as soon as possible."
THIS GIVES ADVICE. Why can't we give advice on trauma due to a possible (alleged)
Bigfoot sighting? Also UFO sightings?  WHY NOT?
Note: Bigfoot witnesses can be traumatized and require someone to talk to.
Contacting a Bigfoot org. can help them.
STOP RESISTING THIS.
beckjordBeckjord 20:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTE FOR DreamGuy re FIRST AID IN WIKIPEDIA AND WHAT TO DO

message: The intent is to make people shut up about these things. Martial Law 05:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intent ?

message: Lets all be civil here people, or this article may end up blocked again. We do NOT want another Edit war, do we ? Martial Law 09:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civil

message: fine with me as long as it is locked in my version.
:-)
beckjordBeckjord 21:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: blocked again?

message: You have no user page. Who are you? Name? Wiki is full of cowards.
Now, adding INFO,and correcting FALSE info, is legit for the Bigfoot page.
There is no question whatever that Bigfoot exists. The question is what kind of thing is it?
Asking if Bigfoot "exists" is so 1970.
Wikipedia is an info WEBSITE. Encyclopedias are in print form, in libraries. If they are online,
they are not subject to edits by any fool who walks in. That is why real encyclopedias will always have respect and Wikipedia not.
beckjordBeckjord 21:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks, Beckjord. Thanks. El_C 07:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Luvchineselit

message: LETS KEEP THIS CIVIL, or the Bigfoot page may end up blocked. MY User page has some Wikipedia shortcuts that may prove useful.Martial Law 07:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! And let's also keep it RELAXED! ;) Not to worry, articles are never locked indefinitely. Feel free to add WP:WQT to your userpage. :) El_C 08:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[!!!!]] 

message: what is this and why should I add it to my user page?
DOESN'T ANYONE EVER EXPLAIN HERE?
beckjordBeckjord 05:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the blue color words and abbreviations that appear every so often in posts on this page? Those are all links to useful wiki pages. Click on them to learn to improve your wiki skills. WP:WQT is a redirect to the policy page Wikipedia:Etiquette. Just click on it. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:WQT

message: Beckjord, you need to CITE the claims you make, and I see in the article that you misunderstand what it mean to "cite sources" for a claim. Example: you write, "Daegling also, in his book, reveals a basic failure to understand that weight distributed on a plate, plank or faked foot, does not make any significant penetration into the soil". For this statement, you cite ...Daegling! No, Daegling does not claim that Daegling reveals a basic failure to understand stuff. You claim it. You can't use Daegling as a source for it, and you can't use yourself either (Wikipedia does not allow original research). You must offer a reputable, published source for the claim that Daegling fails to understand. You see? This is merely one small example, but a good one, of how NPOV and citing sources are supposed to work. Please ponder it, and please stop edit warring to re-insert those kinds of uncited arguments. Edit wars are considered harmful, and they're the quickest way to ruin your own reputation as a reasonable editor. Please work on the NPOV of your own contributions before you re-insert them. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To Beckjord: NPOV and citing sources

message: why not use a real name? I do.
Anyway, have made changes to suit you.
beckjordBeckjord 06:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reply to Bishonen

message: I appreciate your tips, however, and have acted on them.
beckjordBeckjord 05:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop editing the Bigfoot page.

message: :No, you're not going to wear out your revert finger, you'll be blocked first. Please stop disrupting this page by SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS and insulting other editors. And especially stop edit warring on the article. I won't lock the article if you keep it up, I will block you instead. That should give you time to digest some of the good advice you've been given by several people above, and to click on the useful links they keep posting for you. (Please see my reply to your frustrated "DOESN'T ANYONE EVER EXPLAIN HERE" query above: blue words are links.)
:Incidentally, your continued demands that people should give personal information here, apart from being rude, show a poor understanding of Internet realities. Please follow this link, for some suggestion of what's at stake for admins who choose not to reveal their real names. 
:Formatting tips: Please don't give every sentence its own heading in extra large capitals, it uses up a lot of space and makes the page harder to use. Format talkpage headings with two equals signs at the ends, ==, not one. I've corrected your most recent headings. Also, note that you can indent your responses an appropriate amount by starting them with one, two, or more colons. A colon at the beginning of a line will always be read by the software as indentation, which means that you can't start a line with a smiley. (I see that you often do, and you've probably noticed that odd effects ensue.) Bishonen | talk 09:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Block warning for Beckjord

message: So, if you see more than one Bigfoot at once, would you be seeing a pack of Bigfeet?  Or would you be seeing a pack of Bigfoots?  Also, what is the proper plural collective name for a pack of Bigfeet?  I.e. a gaggle of geese, a pod of dolphins, etc.
What is the estimated population size of Bigfeet?  Are we talking about only a few hundred, making them an endangered species, or are there a lot more of them out there?
I am absolutely shocked that they have not been put on the Endangered Species List.  If we don't act quickly we are going to destroy all of their habitat with housing developments and they will, unfortunately, go extinct.  --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the people shooting at them don't kill them all.  I've wondered about the plural as well.  And have there ever been any baby Bigfoot sightings?  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *It occurs to me that a baby Bigfoot should be called a Littlefoot and if you are ever lucky enough to run across a creche of Bigfoot babies, you should exclaim, "Greetings, Littlefeet!"  --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: **<snort> User:Zoe|(talk) 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluralization of Bigfoot and other Bigfoot-related questions 

message: Lets keep this CIVIL people. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. If you wish, I can try to mediate this dispute on MY Talk page. Martial Law 21:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again...

message: I find that just anyone with ony comic-book knowledge can edit this article, and many such do.
I reject 100% any "consensus" with uneducated (in this topic) amateurs. They simply do not know
what they are doing. They misread the references, and often do not read them at all. Example-
p[revious verions was saying Dr Rosen has no corroboration on his findings. Totally  false.
I know the man, went to his lab. The hairs were NOT found to be ordinary animals.
I find Wiki more shockingly bad every day.
beckjordBeckjord 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. He's one of the paranormalist Bigfooters. He's tried to put statements in to that effect into the article before. He's not just pro-Bigfoot and unwilling to write objectively, he's pro-dimensional shadow monster stuff, so that even the pro-Bigfoot people don;t take him seriously. DreamGuy 21:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: correcting shockingly false and bad edits

message: User:Beckjord has issued a call at his own forum for his supporters to come in and revert war on Bigfoot, with easy-to-follow instructions for full-scale edit warring. Compare my notice on the administrator's noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a clearly unacceptale and underhanded tactic; and it will carry consequences. El_C 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Forgive my naivete: Is there really such a thing as Un-3RR being in effect? Who gets to declare it? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Un-3RR goes into effect for "good" users when a "call to arms" has been declared on an external website directing meat puppets to vandalize a Wikipedia article.  I am not the one who declared Un-3RR in this case; Beckjord did with his actions.  I was just noting that it is now in effect in case anyone didn't realize (as presumably you didn't).  --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beckjord calls for revert warring on this article

message: ::::Let me be first: NO! There are better ways to resolve disputes. Martial Law 04:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One editor not getting his way is not a war, especially if that editor continues to ignore basic Wikipedia policy. android79 06:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Response

message: The basic policy being violated is vandalism. DreamGuy and others are preserving GROSSLY
WRONG INFO. Deliberate distortions of data. 
Hear me?
I am fighting for truth. DG is fighting for erors. Zoe and Cyde should drop out. DG is teh Dark Side.
Call me and discuss 510-633-2526. Nobody has b*lls to do so. 
beckjordBeckjord 07:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, when you do make new sections (you don't need to most of the time) use two = symbolds before and after the title... when you do it with only one it screws the formatting up. Secondly, before you accuse people of vandalism, you should read and follow the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy, in this case specifically Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. While you are at it, also try Wikipedia:Civility and all the various other policies already pointed out to you. If you don't follow the rules here it's no wonder there is a long list of editors undoing your edits on sight. DreamGuy 07:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No