Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 5

message: The famous Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967 showing what appears to be a bigfoot has been debunked over the years by critics claiming it is a man in an ape suit; on the other side, proponents claim that if it is a suit, it is better than Hollywood ever came up with.  Going from that perspective, critics should consider the following:
1)  The Patterson/Gimlin film was made on a shoe-string budget, if it had the backing of anyone to begin bbbbb ioukhwith.  This implies the "suit" also was limited in funding.
2)  Hollywood came up with two films around the time of the Patterson/Gimlin film: Planet of the Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Both films featured actors in ape costumes, and at the time the budgets levied for the make-up department was enormous.  In the sequel to Planet of the Apes (Escape from the Planet of the Apes) carelessness on the part of the make-up department is clearly seen: in the sauna scene one can see the hem of the ape suit trouser on the Dr Zaius character.  The Patterson/Gimlin film should be comparred with what Hollywood came out with at the time.
3)  In all Hollywood films up until the 1988 (Gorillas in the Mist), the distingushing characteristic of an ape suit is the fold in the fabric at various bending points (i.e. shoulder, knee, etc), similar to what one can see on ordinary clothing.  Planet of the Apes had the apes wear clothing as part of the costume, in order to hide this defect (this was also used for the Ewoks to hide the seams in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi).  It should be noted that there is no apparent folding of the fabric on the bigfoot of the Patterson/Gimlin film. Carajou 16:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patterson film and the "ape suit" 

message: As cheesy and nonsense as it is, this by far has to be the worst and I mean worst bigfoot hoax of all time. This was so badly done that I cannot believe the media even cared. Reported Bigfoot siting in Clarence, New York a hoax. The sources are at the bottom. There are photos on them. Hope someone will update it. DragonFire1024 08:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New developments 

message: www.lorencoleman.com 06:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loren Coleman

message: While I was moving, listening to Coast To Coast AM 's "Open Lines" show, two subjects reported that a Bigfoot had attacked them, so they opened fire on it with weapons they had, incl. a .410 and a .44 magnum. One hit it in the head, which then drove the monster away. More reports of this nature will surface. Their Sheriff's Office ridiculed them. I'm now in Texas, and it is legal to kill anything threatening those who believe they are threatened by a intruder, be it another human or a monster. In a nutshell, if you think a person or monster is threatening you, you can blow him/her,it away. Someone else asking similar questions may not be so polite. Some will run from it, others will stand and fight. Wikipedians who listen to the radio show Coast To Coast AM, and/or to Jeff Rense's radio show should keep a eye on this matter. Is this worthy of inclusion to the article in relation to how different people's reactions to this thing vary ? Martial Law 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definatly not. That's information about other people, not bigfoot. Either way, it's not really encyclopedic (people will react to things how they react). --InShaneee 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is how people react to this thing. I am in a area in which people will shoot to kill. Last night, someone killed a burglar when this person committed a home invasion. The story is in the local paper. That is why someone in a "Bigfoot suit" is asking for a Darwin Award, and explains why some people will shoot at Bigfoot. Can this be stated:"Weapons Use Some people will, when confronted by this thing, will attempt to kill it, maybe to collect a bounty that may be in effect, and/or for self protection, to protect property and loved ones." ? I have met these people, they carry loaded guns with them, even when they go to the "john","loo", the can, etc. I've seen some cases on some of the TOP Bigfoot sites citing personnel shooting at this thing, incl. Cryptomundo and the BFRO. One case mentions that some hunters thought they killed a bear, then went to have a look at the kill, and found out they nailed a Bigfoot, then there is the alleged kill made by a "Bugs", who called Art Bell, claiming to have killed a Bigfoot family. Then there is the report I've heard on a recent Coast To Coast AM "Open Lines" broadcast in which a armed party had shot at a Bigfoot that was attacking them and their truck. Martial Law 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article already reeks of original research.  Your proposed addition will only make it worse. CPitt76 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated, people will try to bring one in, mainly for the known accumalated $20 M Bounty. Martial Law 07:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes from people, colleges and the like posting all manner of bounties, all in a effort to kill a Bigfoot and bring in a body to claim any bounties and fame for bringing one in. How would "YOU" like to be the one who killed one, brought it in to a major college, like Harvard to collect any bounties, and fame, to be known as "the person who PROVED that Bigfoot is real ? "You'll" make a fortune in commercial endorsements, especially those launched by sporting goods/outdoor outfitters such as "Sportsman's Guide", as in this:"I used a .410, wore this Goretex Jacket, used Coleman Products...", etc.,"when I brought in the real Bigfoot. Now I'm after a Lizard Man that is haunting the Carolinas.". Martial Law 07:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The college gets the body, the "bounty hunter" gets to make a literal fortune, later on, laws are passed to protect the creature. Only being truthful, no more, no less. Martial Law 07:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for shooting ?s

message: Usually, every Friday night, in the US (where the show is located), the show has what they call Open Lines. This is how I had found out about someone shooting at this thing. Want to participate,
just keep it clean. The phone No.#s are on the Coast To Coast AM website, and George Noory also initiates a "Special" phone number for specific use. One time, it was the Ghost Line, another time, it was the Alien Abduction Line. I've found some Wikipedians who are Coast To Coast AM fans. Martial Law 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not advising people how to do anything. Only citing the show as a source, no more, no less. Do apologise if I was in error. Martial Law 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coast To Coast AM

message: I have talked to law enforcement personnel about people hunting this thing. Can it be stated that:" The police, other law enforcement does not want people hunting this thing, since someone can get hurt, even killed, either by a hunting party looking for a bounty, and/or that this thing, if it exists, will hurt, if not kill them." ? Martial Law 05:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some who want to hunt it are not sober at all, thinking it'll pay for a lot of booze, or are just looking for a fast buck. Martial Law 05:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A major reason that law enforcement does not want people hunting this thing, is that criminals are using remote areas to grow pot and making meth, and will kill intruders, have been known to use booby traps and/or guards to deter law enforcement and inquisitive civilians. I have seen this repeatedly on the news outlets and on the Documentary channels. Martial Law 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be restated in the article ? Martial Law 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Law in Bigfoot Article

message: This link is about a recent Bigfoot conference. Anything useful here ? Martial Law 06:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conference

message: This linksays that a paranormal version of "The A-Team" had caught a Bigfoot. More is on www.coasttocoastam.com about this matter RIGHT NOW. They claimed to have caught one three (3) years ago. Is this shocker of a link useful ? Martial Law 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These people are supposedly after a Jinn right now. Martial Law 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot (claimed to be) CAPTURED

message: See this link: Bigfoot on Family Tree This implies that Bigfoot evolved alonside humans. If true, this may dispel the hypothesis that Bigfoot is some kind of alien. Martial Law 20:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he isn't an alien...he doesn't even exist here for all basic purposes. If he is anything, he is a descendant of Paranthropus boisei, but not Gigantopithecus who was probably a knuckle walker.--MONGO 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says it came from Homo erectus. Martial Law 20:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be stated then, that based on this article, that,"Bigfoot may be a Homo Erectus", and could someone place this link on the Homo erectus article ? Martial Law 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the Bigfoot websites do mention smaller creatures. Martial Law 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Homo Erectus is too advanced and couldn't be the ancestor of a less advanced creature. Understand that mammals change in size over time...examples include the horse and even modern humans. The average European male in the 1500's was about 5'2" and that average is much higher now, only 500 years later. The only potential ancestor for Bigfoot is Paranthropus boisei or Paranthropus robustus...they could easily have become larger over time. The fossil record does not support any evidence of Gigantopithecus or the Paranthropus beyond about 700,000 years ago...so unless there are new finds to yet be unearthed (which is probable), there is no fossil lineage to the modern Bigfoot, hence the argument by some that Bigfoot is an alien species. The only real proof we have is that Bigfoot is simply a myth, and that the sightings are not anything more than people either misinterpreting what they see (ie, it was actually a bear) or they are lying, or they just have zero knowledge of zoology.--MONGO 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No offense intended, what are you ? A zoologist ? Martial Law 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot on Evolutionary Tree with Humans:

message: I have seen on the Sci-Fi Channel on 7-11-06 @ or near 20:00 EST/EDT a movie called Sasquatch Hunter. In this, a armed science detail finds evidence of a Bigfoot in what is later a Bigfoot cemetary, and they're attacked by what looks like a cross between a demon and a bear. 1/2 of the group is brutally killed, and one character looks like Loren Coleman, and is a Bigfoot researcher. The creatures are depicted to be the hight of a small building, have fangs instead if teeth, extremely strong, extremely agile. As the movie progresses, two or more of the creatures are shot by the surviving characters using Remington 12 ga.s, what appears to be 9 mm  or .45 cal. handguns, some other firearms. Two of the things are shot and killed as they escape.
Where can this be placed ? Or is it already placed in the article ? Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the movie does have language issues, such as when the attacks start, one character says such things as, after being attacked, "There is a F-(censored) monster out here, Drop everything and lets get the F-(censored) out of here !" The censorship is a small amount of audio loss used to censor out the word "Fuck" in the movie, related profanity. Martial Law 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot movie

message: Should this article, Memorial Day footage, be merged within the video section here?  It doesn't seem to be enough to stand alone and does seem lost under that heading (at least confusing to the general public).  -RJFerret 04:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial Day footage 

message: What new evidence ? DNA ? Blood ? Hair/Fur ? Someone shoot one ? Where I'm @, people here are "trigger happy", meaning they'll shoot first, if the target lives, ask it questions. Martial Law 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Evidence ?

message: This is from the Cryptomundo website: Bigfoot SHOT AND KILLED. Where can this be placed ? Another reason I've been asking about people shooting @ these things. Martial Law 05:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More reports of this nature will surface. I'll try to get the primary link. Martial Law 05:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several primary links, claim is that it was shot on a Native American Reservation. Martial Law 05:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be placed anywhere ? Martial Law 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The South Dakota media may have more, according to what Loren Coleman has on this matter, see the RED links in article that he has selected. Some link to alleged police reports. Martial Law 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoaxing/making a false police report is a criminal offense, the alleged police report is Police link. After the primary police and/or news link. Martial Law 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a common news source in these links. These are Link 1, Link 2, Link 3. This may be the local news source that Loren Coleman used to make the above report. Martial Law 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links lead to a sort of Paranormal website instead. Martial Law 18:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loren Coleman claims that this has not hit the local media yet. Martial Law 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ML, go read Wikipedia:Reliable sources please. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate the reminder. That is why I have been after the primary links/Originating News sources. Martial Law 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loren should publish the originating links/News sources on his website and the Cryptomundo site as well. Martial Law 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot SHOT AND KILLED

message: A TV commercial depicts people playing practical jokes on bigfoot, such as unscrewing the salt shaker, placing ink on binoculars. The advert belongs to a company called "Jack Link's Jerky" which is about cooked and dried protien sticks and other jerky found in the check out aisle in major grocery chains and convience stores in the US. Can this be mentioned anywhere, since it is a TV commercial that uses Bigfoot in the ads? In one, Bigfoot nearly kills one of the practical jokers. A bug on my Sat. IP is causing me to stay logged out most of the time. Martial Law 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this belong in the cultural catagory ? Martial Law 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found website of the Beef Jerky commercial. This is a source for said commercial stated above. This source is www.messinwithsasquatch.com. Martial Law 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site has some Bigfoot trivia, games, and other matter on it. Martial Law 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TV Commercial

message: This is a horror movie that has been previewed on the Science Fiction Channel, will be shown on 9-9-06, is called: Sasquatch Mountain, an Original Sci-Fi Channel Movie. For more, go to www.scifi.com Martial Law 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial Law, please try to use talkpages appropriately. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not TV Guide. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My ISP was really screwing up bad today. I thought that they had fixed the problem. Martial Law 04:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will comply Bish. Martial Law 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting "?", will have to check WP protocol. Martial Law 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any WP protocol covering this question ? Martial Law 21:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in Fouke, Arkansas myself, investigating a Bigfoot incident when someone thought it was smart to use me for target practice, because "skeptics" had implied that the people there are idiot, inbred hillbillies, because they had seen/encountered, even went after the creature. Martial Law 05:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sci-Fi Original Movie: ''Sasquatch Mountain'':

message: This sounds a little weird.  I think the opening sentence could be a lot better.  I am not sure exactly what it should say.  I am sure that a lot of work has gone into it already.   Steve Dufour 09:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try something.  Please note that something can be legendary and also real, see for instance Jesse James.  Steve Dufour 12:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Polarized people?

message: My proposed sentence didn't last long.  Here it was: "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is a legendary creature, that some people believe is also real."
For the record I think it is highly unlikely that Bigfoot really exists.  However it would be very cool if he did.
I can see that a lot of thought and work has gone into the opening sentence of this article: "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is the popular name of a phenomenon which many people believe is a real creature but many people do not."  However I do have a couple of problems with it.  
For one thing the word "phenomenon", although a very good word, does not give a clear impression of its intended meaning.  This might discourage some readers rather than making them eager to read more, as a good opening sentence should.
For another is it necessary to bring in the non-believers so soon?  I think it is the believers who make Bigfoot a notable subject, not the non-believers.  Anyway the non-believers have lots of chances to make their points later on in the article.  I think in the third paragraph the negative opinion of most scientists is cited.
Anyway, wishing everyone the best.  Happy Bigfoot hunting, but please don't shoot him.  Steve Dufour 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust you have since read the info about this on your talk page. Moriori 01:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are doing great work here on Wikipedia.  I just happen to disagree with you on this subject.  Really a matter of taste, I guess.  Wishing you well.  Steve Dufour 01:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My interest was only in giving the article a more interesting opening sentence.  Wishing you well.  Steve Dufour 03:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: I made an attempt to take off most of the orginal research.  I want to see both sides' cases presented well.  That is what will make this an interesting article.  Steve Dufour 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: These two links are from tourist guides and the local newspaper: Fouke Monster in Ark. tourguide, and Texarkana Gazette article:Fouke Monster Martial Law 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fouke Monster]]

message: any information about Yarwen the baby bigfoot that was supposedly captured and sold recently?
--voodoom 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  baby bigfoot? 

message: If you check out the ape article you will see that humans, near human ancestors, chimps, and gorillas are all members of the same biological family. So humans are "ape-like" and apes are "human-like".  I think that almost all Bigfoot believers would consider him to also be a member of this family.  All of the theoretical suggestions for his identity are members (except for the minority opinion that he is an ET).  "Ape-like" is therefore 100% correct but I wonder if it gives the right picture to the average reader.  Is there a way it could be expressed more clearly to the average person? Steve Dufour 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ape like?

message: See this link: Dead "Bigfoot" Found. WHAT is this thing ? Martial Law 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegedly, this thing was found near Fouke, Arkansas, is on Smokey Crabtree's website. Martial Law 00:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Dead (!) Bigfoot ?!

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 18:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: In this article, there is a quote from Robert Michael Pyle's book Where Bigfoot Walks:  Crossing the dark divide.  It says, "Tracks commonly measure fifteen to twenty inches or more in length. They have five toes, a double-muscle ball, and a wide arch" (Pyle, 3).  I happen to have this book in my house, and it says instead, "Tracks commonly measure fifteen to eighteen inches or more in length.  They have five toes, a double muscle-ball, and a low arch." I don't know if this is simply a typo in my (well, actually, it's not mine:  it's from the public library) copy of the book, or a typo in this article, but somebody with the book as well may check in their copy to be sure.  Thanks!
Nineteenninetyfour 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Correction 

message: Does anyone know the plural of Bigfoot?  Is it Bigfoots or Bigfeet?  Nineteenninetyfour 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This sentence has bothered me since I first came across this article:
:The majority of scientists reject  the likelihood of such a creature's existence, and consider the stories of Bigfoot to be a combination of unsubstantiated folklore and hoax  http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/bigfoothoaxes.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_26/ai_83585957 http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/photos/bigfoot1.html.
The word "reject" bothers me.  If it said they do not believe that would be fine.  But reject seems kind of strong.  Have the majority of scientists expressed an opinon about Bigfoot at all?  Steve Dufour 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it were to say:  "Few scientists accept.."?  Steve Dufour 16:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will go ahead and make the change since nobody seems to object.  Steve Dufour 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientists "reject"

message: often wrong because it does not actively investigate.
See book by Dr Colm Kelleher, "The Hunt for the Skinwalker".
:-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.68.138 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream 

message: The 2006 entry under "sightings" should be removed. If this topic is locked, how did this entry appear? It is unsourced and contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors.
:I have removed the entry, because it has no supporting references. Moriori 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Baaaack. Martial Law 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just seen the entry. Martial Law 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone cited it w/ two sources. Martial Law 23:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 sighting 

message: How do i put something up for deletion?71.60.177.16 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need some help 

message: The section at Bigfoot#Footnotes is mysterious to me. I can't find those footnotes in the rest of the article. They don't seem to be connected. Help? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disconnected footnotes?

message: There's a discussion of possible sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Beckjord, a user who was known for disrupting this page in the past. So far I haven't reverted edits to this page because I wanted to be sure. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beckjord back?

message: This article needs alot of cleaning and sweeping up. This person whose name is Erik Jon Beckjord has seemed to make more enemies for than friends through Wikipedia and many other websites where he is espousing his theory on how Bigfoot and the Lochness Monster are transporting through dimensional time worm holes. And I think the evidence he cites to support this is to say that no one has ever found Bigfoot. If Bigfoot does infact exist. It might be reasonable in which to conclude that not everyone who happens and chance upon a visual encounter is carrying a digital camera with them to take snap shots. I think the only three peices of evidence in existence so far are the Patterson and Gimlin footage from Bluff Creek Columbia from October of 1967. I think this issue is still hotly debated today among alot of people. If that is infact a man who is inside of a suit. The muscle mass and stride and swinging of arms suggest the most expert of hoaxes. The second footage comes from the guy whose name I cannot clearly remember right now. But the video footage of whatever he shot looks awful damn suspicious even when you are standing 200 feet away. The footage of what is rumoured to be a Bigfoot running across what I beleive is Chopoka Lake in Washington on my west coast. That to me looks ridicolous because of the fact whatever is being filmed running across the open field was videographed from what looks to be more than a mile or two miles away. The figure running across the screen looks like a literal small blip or a pixel dot running across the screen. If there are a rumoured 2000 to 6000 of the cryptoid hominids running around the United States. It seems that someone would have by now photographed one. I am sure there are untold millons of hoaxes proven and unproven which has greatly damaged the integrity in the existence of Bigfoot. But something is out there making these tracks. Something is out there and is emitting a foul odor and stench from a distance. Something is leaving foot prints in the ground with dermal ridges in the ground. Something out there is making loud and guttural shreiks and screams not easily common and identfiable to other animals. I grant you that people in large collectives lie. But if you accept that 4999 people are lying to you and one of them is telling the truth. Well one person telling the truth poses a problem. I would like to see this article get cleaned up. I would like to see cited sources that support the existence for and against Bigfoot. The United States is huge and loaded with techonology. But with all of that square acreage there are still places that human cannot go. I would really like to see this article get cleaned up more. Bigfoot is one of my favorite subjects. I wish someone could come forward with damning and undeniable evidence that something is out there and spark renewed interest in all of this. I would like to see all good spirited and fair minded Wikipedians clean up this article and to keep a disruptive influence like Beckjord out who esposes crazy theories. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 02:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: Gigantopithecus is, in my opinion, fossil evidence. The part saying there is none should be removed.
:The very limited amount of fossil evidence of Gigantopithecus only proves that there is fossil evidence of a very large ape that died out at least 100,000 years ago...that is not fossil evidence for Bigfoot.--MONGO 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a question of interpretation. Citing experts who say that Gigantopithecus is fossil evidence for Bigfoot, as well as citing those who say it is not, would be fine so long as it was worded clearly. Stating merely that there is fossil evidence for Bigfoot is interjecting your own opinion (that is, WP:OR) and should not be done. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fossil Evidence 

message: Someone in one of the older talk archives was asking why bf was always "blurry" when photographed, I guess tongue-in-cheek intimating that the animal doesn't exist.  Two things you have to remember, though, when it comes to pictures purported to be of bigfoot: 
(1.) From the reading I've done in books and at sites like BFRO, your typical encounter involves someone with little interest in bigfoot nor any knowledge of the animal other than its reputation as folkloric monster that doesn't actually exist...in other words, someone who certainly never intended to run into one as he/she strolled through the woods; also, the encounters are over and done in a matter of seconds, with the supposed creature ambling off elsewhere and the person having the sighting spending those valuable seconds trying to integrate into his/her worldview what's taking place (which is how most of us would react, I'd imagine).  So, even if someone had the presence of mind to reach for a camera and get off a shot within the small window of opportunity presented, it'd probably be expected that it not be of the best quality.  
Also, (2.) there *have* been taken relatively clear pictures supposedly of bigfoot, at which skeptics paradoxically scoff because it's TOO in-focus and therefore MUST represent a hoax. (Say someone, by some miracle, took a clear photo of a sasquatch sitting on a log just with the ease and calm of someone taking a picture of a hiking buddy doing the same, wouldn't most people's reaction be, "*Snort* Yeah, right"?)  It's a real catch-22. Besides, in this age, photographic "evidence" of sasquatch is almost useless because any picture of just about ANYTHING can be enshrouded in reasonable doubt given all the advanced graphics programs out there.  Even a video can be brushed off as the product of some fun-loving FX guys with too much time on their hands and a really expensive suit.  About the only kind of video I can see being taken seriously is one in which the "creature" on film is doing something extremely difficult--if not close to impossible--to replicate with FX costumery: giving birth, maybe.
Massofspikes 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are not supposed to be used as forums for discussing the subject itself, only for discussing the state of the article and changes to it, actual or proposed. If you are suggesting some particular change you want to see in the article, please make your point more clearly as I don't get it. Otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia, we hope you enjoy editing here, and in the future try other forums for your general discussion needs. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I was offering a possible answer to a question asked on a *past archived talk page* about why bigfoot pictures are/were "always" blurry.  (One person joked that the pictures weren't blurry, but that it's bigfoot itself that's blurry.)  A disclaimer at the top of the that *particular* talk page warned against editing it because it was now archived, but to go to the most recent talk page, instead.  Seemed like I was just following directions.  I wasn't the person who originally used a talk page to raise the issue; I was merely responding to it months later.  I'm not sure why that--or my "point"--is difficult to "get." Massofspikes 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I upset you. So you're suggesting entering material in the article stating that Bigfoot pictures are always blurry? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all.  But I don't believe the original poster who raised the question back at the archived page (or the two or three posters who responded) intended to make it a part of the article, either.  I'd just been reading and, seeing the issue broached, wanted to chime in with what my take on it.  I suppose that the next time if/when this happens, I'll just personally message the poster in question so this sort of misunderstanding won't arise. (And don't worry about "upset"ing me; I just get a little snarky--really at myself--when someone says that they don't understand the "point" of what I've written.)Massofspikes 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Always "Blurry" When Photographed?

message: Since a photo of the actual bigfoot is difficult or impossible to find, I'd like more pictures.
Pictures of Paranthropus, that Indian wall art, maps of sightings, "welcome to Bigfootland" signs,...
--84.20.17.84 11:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put your banners at the top where they can be seen better. Totnesmartin 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures