Talk:Bigfoot/Archive 2

message: Where is the ref for the reported size of eyes and head, please? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference/source

message: * It is a extremely large creature.
* It really STINKS.
* Is extremely strong.
* Fur color varies, ranging from solid black to snowy white.
* Usually will not confront people.
* Makes horrifying noises.
* Is some kind of omnivore. Will raid property, such as farms, ranches, even compost piles and other trash for food, if there is no food in the wild. As to, how should I place this w/o violating Wiki policies, it's feces, like other feces is eaten by various bugs and bacteria.
* Has extremely BIG feet, thus is why it is called a Bigfoot.
* Is usually a muscular creature that is usually 7' to 12' tall(Taller than most NBA players)
These are the known and accepted facts concerning this thing. Martial Law 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not known or accepted facts. Those are beliefs and claims of some pro-Bigfoot supporters, and even there not all of them agree on all those points. Huge difference. Please go read Wikipedia policies on NPOV, verifiability, etc., as you obviously have not bothered to do so when those links were given to you earlier. DreamGuy 02:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: DreamGuy is right.  —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restating Known FACTS

message: User:Beckjord is forming some kind of group that may oppose Wikipedia. It is called WAFE
a acronym that stands for Wikipedians After Fair Editing
He is asking people to join this organization.
Please notify your Admins. of this. Martial Law 09:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am NOT joining this organization. Martial Law 09:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A number of admins and myself and other editors now have this article on our watch lists. If Beckjord tries anything, with meatpuppets or otherwise, that violates policies here, there's a long line of people ready to respond. DreamGuy 06:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How do you know he has 10 or more meatpuppets? So far, two have surfaced, and were quickly caught. There are ways of dealing with this problem that will not "exhaust" us. android79 06:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WAFE

message: I noticed this link in the external links section and it discusses that hair samples found in a suspected bigfoot footprint were sent to the University Of Alberta for DNA testiing...and that results were expected back later in the week. Well, I found the results  and they are apparently hairs from a Bison. I was wondering why this second citation is not in the article but the first one is. If we are to have an article that is going to be worthy of being encyclopedic, then we must do our research more throughly.--MONGO 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots and lots of cases like that where DNA tests showed normal animal hair, often bears, goats, etc. Apparently the Bigfoot true believers don't want people to know that. Furthermore, I find the claims of the one study mentioned here that no match could be made highly suspect. It was made before DNA testing was routine, so it's doubtdul they did any test that could stand up to scrutiny by today's standards. The reference in the article covers up it's age, and people today assume hair is tested for DNA when it is tested so would believe that those tests had been done in this case -- as in fact one of our pro-Bigfoot people here claimed on this talk page when I pointed out that all DNA tests that have been done show real, known animals. These sorts of things need to be in there, or else there is a strong bias by ommission. DreamGuy 02:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one of those that will not rule out the existence of such a creature. There is simply no physical proof that is accepted by the scientific community however. Basically, if they were to exist, there would have to be something close to at least 100 of them scattered across the U.S. Pacific Northwest and western Canada in order to maintain themselves through normal reproductive patterns known in all Great Apes and Humans, of which, apparently, this creature is most likely associated with biologically. Simply put...there has yet to be anything tangible in the form of physical evidence whereby we could honestly say, well, yes, here is proof of a previously unknown primate in North America. The section on skeletal remains is weak for the disbelievers as it is extremely rare for even an outdoorsman such as myself to ever stumble upon the remains of any animal. One of the reasons the great apes are so endangered in Africa is due to their relatively low reproductive capabilities and species thinning due to habitat loss and poaching. Taking all other factors out of the equation aside from species maintainability and the lack of physical evidence...the rest of the information probably should be covered for the sake of being exhaustive, but they do little to help the supportors or the disbelievers because they tend to cancel each other out.--MONGO 03:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Beckjord, do not squeeze your own comments in between earlier comments to try to throw off the conversation. I moved yours to the end... but, frankly, your comments make you like liks a paranoic conspiracy theorist. We aren;t supposed to trust reliable sources because they all lie, but we're supposed to take the word of fringe publications and self-declared experts nobody ever heard of just because they support your side? Claiming current hair analkysis now is a waste of time completely m isses the fact that now they can do DNA tests and figure out for sure where the hair samples came from, instead of old, old "studies" which were just some guy eyeballing a clump of hair and trying to guess what it came from. The old studies are completely unscientific by current standards. New studies are indisputable. And all of the new DNA studies have ALWAYS come back with, goat, bison, bear, cat, whatever. Your arguments are nonsense and we need to update this article to reflect modern DNA studies instead of the wishful thinking of the pro-Bigfoot crowd. DreamGuy 23:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference check 

message: Looks like it to me. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected. I'm a little worried something in the article got scrambled around during all that; don't have time to look in detail right now, so someone might want to pick carefully through the history. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what happened there, but I've reverted it back a little ways... some sections had seemed to have gone missing. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unprotected. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to semi-protect? 

message: name any author who says Bigfoot has small eyes.
Tell us, I can hardly wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
beckjordBeckjord 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DreamGuy

message: I, and others, of like mind, are not trying to "take over"  the Bigfoot page.
We do not need to try to flood them page with PRO info, because if honestly reported,
much of the research shows something is there, and we do not have to stretch it, fake it or fudge it.   But much of what is there now , ignores other objective info, and used bad, weak authors
who never did field work. These are selected for their critical views. Pyle, for instance, never left his house to write his book. How ya gonna call that "Reputable" ?  It isn't.
We, members of Wikians After Fair Editing, (which seems to threaten many insecure people here)
just want all sides shown and we are confident that if all the info is laid out, it will present
a positive showing, because the truth is never 50-50. It is usually 98-2 
Support WAFE ! You get 79 Virgins in Heaven! - And you get to argue with Rene Dahinden -- or is that Hell?
;-)  
beckjordBeckjord 09:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTICE  TO DreamGuy and others of like mind 

message: They always will. They have no basis for any complaints, since they do no field work, and were NOT THERE. In one case, "Looking for Mr Goodape" Bob Sheaffer was told he might not see nor hear anything on the trip, since BF stays away from skeptics. When he left, a kid camped with family and did see
a Bigfoot. Later, I did get pix, of beings not seen.
Dr Molly Hanson, organizational psychologist, skeptic, did go on two day hike and found BF trax on her own, and became a believer. Arizona trip, 1979.
"A skeptic is a person who, when he sees the handwriting on the wall, says it is a forgery" - Morris Bender (MarcusTCicero 21:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  skeptics have complained 

message: (revert Beckjord on an anon IP (check edit history) blind reverting all changes I made because he irrationally hates skeptics, NPOV the WP:NOR policy and me (again, see his contribution history) 
reply: this is garbage. I do not knowingly edit using anon.  DG is the one violating NPOV. He has an agenda. DG reverts the entire article, just to dump a few edits he does not like. My researcxh is quoted in many sources. If you IGNORE current research, you make the article stale and passe'.
Truth is important. What a non-researcher skeptic says in his office has no merit, even if in a bad book.
beckjordBeckjord 06:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DG comments in edit box

message: No. I know Bob Sheaffer personally and have partied with him in local Mensa. (Goodape art.)
One other skeptic went on a trip, found bigfoot tracks on her own and became my girlfriend.
I do not hate other skeptics as much as I have no respect for them.
beckjordBeckjord 06:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: irrationally hate skeptics

message: quote:  In 2003, Japanese mountaineer, Makoto Nebuka, published the results of his 12-year linguistic study and postulated that the word "yeti" is actually a regional dialect term for "bear". The ethnic Tibetans fear and worship the bear (as do many primitive peoples) as a supernatural being. This does not match with what sherpas say,however.
The reference is in The Snow Leopard by Peter Matthiessen. The whole comment by Nebuka is insulting and implies that the local people are taken in by a linguistic trick.. or that we foreigners just do not understand the local language. This negative item is just a skeptic's 
POV item, and it smells. I'm not sure it is even true that local people worship bears since they do kill them. Further, the whole thing is absurd, since westerners have found Yeti  tracks at 
altitudes where BEARS DO NOT GO, and with bipedal aspect, not quadupedal. Bears do not walk for miles on two feet. Basic common knowledge. 
I think the Nebuka item needs to be erased. It is a red herring.
My opponent keeps putting in false or illogical items, as if this will Un-prove or debunk 
the Yeti and the rest. Yeti is neither proven nor disproven. He is into mythology and pedantry.
I hope you  do not go that route.
Fighting illogical pedants is tiring. Evil energy abounds.
beckjordBeckjord 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sherpas

message: Can I get some recomendations for this site before placement ? It is Mysteries Megasite Homepage Click on Bigfoot, related cryptids. This site has links to literally dozens of other sites of this nature ? Was going to place it in the "External Sources" section. Trying to avoid violations of the WP:NOR, related protocol, thus am seeking recomendations. Thought I may discuss this matter first. Martial Law 00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can...

message: User:Dr Joe recently showed up out of nowhere with no previous history to start putting beckjord's edits back in and to add similar NPOV-breaking comments. I'd say meatpuppet, based upon his trying to get people here, but it actually looks more like sock to me, especially with the strange habit of ending lines in middle of sentences (is he copying and pasting from some email or other application that forces lines to split after a certain width??) and the peculiar way things were phrased both in the edits and the edit comments. DreamGuy 07:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probable sockpuppet of...guess who....--MONGO 09:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Dr Joe]] 

message: This article sucks and its just ABSOLUTELY CRAP!!
sorry had to do it.  Paddy :-) 00:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several months back I tried to improve things but gave up in disgust after a group of Bigfoot true believers came and not only undid everything I tried to fix but made everything else worse. At least we can thank Beckjord's campaign of POV-pushing and self-promotional original research for bringing these articles to our attention once again. DreamGuy 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article 

message: Bless the founder.  :-)
DrJoe205.208.227.49 10:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All new Wiki members have a right to edit

message: Just clarifying this: Would it be OK to publish material that a investigator has found ? Again, just asking for clarification. Martial Law 04:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fine if it was from a published and circulated source so that it could have been peer reviewed. But if it is just his/her word, it does not comply with no original research--MONGO 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Investigator

message: Actual field workers have a choice between staying home and becoming expert webmasters,
or in getting out, finding new info, and then using amateur skills at being webmasters.
You pick. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH. Of course Android can VOLUNTEER to edit websites. The best
edited Bigfoot websites, have the worst field work. You-cannot-have-both. Understand?
I mean, WHO PAYS US to have pro websites? Where is MY paycheck? Send me cash. I will hire
a pro webmaster. (All this ought to be obvious.)
DrJoeDrJoe 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave you a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources some time ago. It seems you haven't read it. If you have, you must not have read it very closely. The Internet is a wonderful resource, but it's at least 90% garbage, and for paranormal-related topics it's probably a lot worse than that. There is very little on the Web that will be a useful reference for this article. Anyone with a computer can set up a website in no time at all with very little effort. It takes a lot more credibility to get something published in a respected scientific journal, magazine, or by a reputable book publisher. Please keep this in mind the next time you find one of these random Bigfoot websites. android79 04:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: answer to android79

message: Sorry, we, the members of the Berkeley Bigfoot Coop (Dr Joe) do not accept that someone is comptent to decide what sources are reputable or not, merely because they say they are. Anyone,
my ten year old brother, can say that. It has no meaning nor validity. Just like validating Bigfoot, you have to provide proof of yourself, to us.
The DrJoe group.
DrJoeDrJoe 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, but we're not trying to edit your website, see.  If the day comes that we do start editing your website, you'll be entirely justified in demanding proof of our expertise.  Friday (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: competence

message: And you admit this IS a website. (It is not a pedia, it is an info-site. An online source should have online links.)
:-)
The Dr Joe Editing Consortium
DrJoeDrJoe 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I admit it, you win.  Wikipedia is a website.  Gosh, I hope nobody finds out.  People might start trying to access it with a browser, or something.  Friday (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: weak argument

message: This Bigfoot page is now on GOOGLE and more people are coming to see the fireworks!
This is GOOD for Wikipedia, good,good, good. It is GOOD!
Stand back and Laissez les bons temps roulez! Eh bien, mes amis?
DrJoeDrJoe 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new hits on Wikipedia

message: Lets keep this civil before things get out of hand. Martial Law 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: !

message: This is Robert Sheaffer's cute play on the film title "Looking for Mr Goodbar".
Back in late 90s. Of course, Bigfoot is not an ape. Small detail.
Remember 10,000 or more people a DAY come here to learn the REAL TRUTH about Bigfoot.
They are readIng WHAT YOU SAY.
bESIDES, "gETTING OUT OF HAND" LEADS TO THE TRUTH.  You want dull, as with Britannica?
They have maybe  50 words on Bigfoot. No b*lls. Wiki got b*lls. Bravo Wiki!
FIGHT WIKI BOREDOM!
DrJoeDrJoe 06:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are enough bad jokes out there for Wikipedians to get their kicks. What Wikipedia requires of you (as has already been stated) is for you to abide and respect the policies of Wikiedia and to provide verifiable facts from reputable sources. Take care, Doc. SoLando (Talk) 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We are sorry Wikipedia does not meet your needs at this time. There's a whole internet out there. Enjoy! —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodape

message: Have no right to edit.
205.208.227.49 09:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your edit summary "rv- mongo, go play with the stars of that Mel Brooks Film" is supposed to be serious? Your attempts to continue to make this a fantasy article will ultimately lead to some long term problems I think.--MONGO 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: People who vandalize and make personal attacks get a time-out. Come back when you can be civilized. android79 18:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: people making moronic jokes

message: Today, on the History Channel, I have seen some material on Bigfoot and other cryptids.
Channel link is History Channel. Type into the SEARCH area to get info about bigfoot. Martial Law 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentary Channels

message: A rare move for me, but until we can hash out what needs to be in this article, it is the only way to deal with the flow of vandal and sockpuppet acocunts. I will lift protection a couple of days unless someone beats me to it.--MONGO 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt discussion will help matters, as the problem appears to be one editor stubbornly refusing to follow Wikipedia policies and making the same edits across a variety of sockpuppets. There already is very clear consensus that his edits are inappropriate. We can all discuss it and come to the same conclusions, but he won;t change his mind. The only thing that would put a stop to it without a permanent lock down is for beckjord to start following policy, leave, or get under some ArbCom decision. I've seen it happen all the time here. DreamGuy 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I certainly won't disagree with that. But, posted as much as a kinda ridiculous attempt to assume good faith...if we're going to be dealing with the editing as he wants it, always able to fall back on the fantasy to support the illogical and unproven, then it might have to go to arbcom...but he is using AOL, so that may make a permaban difficult.--MONGO 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True... I'm just saying the ol' "protected, discuss this on the talk page" line when it has been discussed repeatedly and consensus has already been established is one of my pet peeves. Wikipedia has some major problems that make it tedious for people trying to do a real encyclopedia to do accomplish anything. Instead we let a single well-known netkook hold articles hostage. Marvelous. If this trend progresses every major article on this site will be permanently stimmied because it only takes one POV-pusher to beat out 5 or 10 or 20 or however many good editors weighed in on the controversy here. It's a recipe for making everything get worse and worse. We should just protect all the damn pages and not let anyone edit until there are reasonable guidelines for encyclopedia writing in place. DreamGuy 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's fine, just he'll have to use one of his logged in accounts to edit, not that this will break my heart.--MONGO 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've decided to protect this page 

message: quote:  always able to fall back on the fantasy to support the illogical and unproven, 
Commenting on what Mongo says about someone else's alleged edits...
Mongo has to show this is fantasy, and ol Mong just is unable to use real logic to criticise what HE says is illogical. I feel this discussion is above the mental level of most Wiki admins and of bureaucrats, and some outwide logician 
needs to be brought in to make a detrmination on the logic of these CLAIMED
ideas, things __not__ presented as facts , but just presented as speculation, based on actual events. Mongo, Android79m, and worst - DreamGuy are unable to 
differentiate between a CLAIM (speculation) and an alleged FACT, proven hypothesis. Due to lack of scientific training, no doubt. Better qualified editors need to look in. So, show the "fantasy" and the "illogic", or go away and edit the mundane. 
205.188.117.7 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 205.188.117.7....I have a masters in forensic anthropology and can tell you that if anyone here lacks scientific training, it's not me. My advisor during my masters thesis was Ellis R. Kerley--MONGO 21:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: prejudice, here, by Mongo

message: I've semi-protected this page; this will stop AOLers and other anonymous users from editing, as well as new sockpuppets (as well as some old ones, hopefully).
Note that this won't be permanant, and I've had to use a rather liberal definition of "vandalism" to justify semi-protection. I consider the ongoing, willful defiance of Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view that this article has been experiencing to be vandalism. Usage of sockpuppets has only made this problem worse. Established editors who want to add new material to this article are welcome to do so as long as their edits are sourced and do not run afoul of the aforementioned policies. Newer editors who want to do the same can discuss changes here on the talk page first. android79 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: + - interdimensional traveller, due to disappareaing tracks evidence, and vanishings before witnesses. If this proves to be true, + - it will make this comic-book and tabloid joke being become a Nobel Prize material item. Of course, + 
  This shows blind prejudice. The incidents are not only true, but some of them
have been documented on videotape. It has no relationship to tabloids unless
a tabloid has lifted information from a website or newsletter. Obviously, 
as the most junior of editors knows, there is no way to get an alleged bigfoot
creature to cooperate with an experiment that shows that it can disappear, before cameras, and measuring machines. If anything of that type shows up,
it may be form a surviellance camera, and one such incident, involving __alleged__ shape-shifting is in the possession of Jack Lapseritis, MA, in Northern WA. (Proceedings of the 2005 Bellingham Bigfoot Convention.)
 Reports of vanishings, and also disappearing tracks in mud and snow,
are found in the book "The Locals" by Thom Powell, listed in refs. below.
Also other reports are found in the archives of the discussion site, 
http://www.bigfootforums.net , as well as on some controversial minority-view
websites. 
 It is the __conclusion__ to be drawn from such events that greatly disturbs
some Bigfoot fans, in fact, most, as well as some of the highly prejudiced editors here in Wiki, who have skeptical POV, and not NPOV.
That conclusion is that space-time wormholes  may access this Earth, from other 
parallel universes, (as discussed re UFOs by Dr Michio Kaku on ABC TV in Feb 05,
with Peter Jennings,) and that alleged (unproven - see- NPOV)Bigfoot creatures, and also missing persons, missing aircraft, etc, may use or access these to 
go to other parallel worlds or universes. Yet this idea of tranversable
wormholes is greatly discussed in Physics, and hundreds of website references can be found on the topic in Google. Scientific American discusses them,
(Dec 05) and so does "Taking the Quantum Leap" by Dr Fred Allen Wolf, Harper and Row, 1981,  .  This makes it hardly "comic book material".
Perhaps Android79 might use his epxertise in editing to enter this material
and information into the Bigfoot site. 
If not, it is guaranteed that new members will do so, over and over until
it sticks. 
205.188.117.7 20:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beckjord, you'll have to provide links to the video tapes and and the images, as well as all documented evidence, and it must be from mainstream sources, not from your own website...as that violates WP:NOR.--MONGO 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Item needs attention of an editor very badly

message: Listen, you can't go in and put in your own header and change and modify what previous editors said so you can insult them and derail the conversation. That is simply despicable. No anyone trying to read that conversation can;t follow it because you've messed it up completely. And your comments have absolutely nothing to do with making an encyclopedia, they are just personal attacks and contempt for our policies.
And, yes, we all know it's you on the IP addresses and using fake names, especially with all the exact same things you do like inserting your comments into the middle of other people's comments and using the same insults and peculiar ways of typing. Give it up. You have no way to win here, all you can do is prove to the world that you are just as bad as your critics say, willing to vandalize websites, make threats, etc. DreamGuy 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beckjord, STOP changing other people's comments

message: do not tell anyone, anyone, what to do. You do not own Wikipedia, nobody hired you, you re not
paid, you do crappy edits on your own artricles, you are not a cop, you have NO authority.
Go stand in the outhouse, and flush yourself.
(unsigned but by beckjord) 07:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I most certainly can tell you what not to do when those things break Wikipedia policy. For example, don't make personal attacks. Changing what other people wrote is obviously not allowed either. Now... are you going to A) read the policies and follow them, B) leave on your accord, or C) get kicked off? Choice is yours. Note that "refuse to follow the policies and do whatever you want" is not an option. DreamGuy 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: do not

message: So what? They DO NOT FIND DEAD BIGFOOT.
Stick with http://www.bigfootresearch.org paracontacts, http://www.bigfoot.org most photos,
and http://www.bigfootencounters.com Bobby Short
Jeff
*Bigfoot Site
Martial Law 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: These Texas people find broken sticks and tracks

message: In many cases, such websites quote the research of others, not just their own.But I agree many are not credible. You must pick and choose.
But also note that NO UNIVERSITY funds and BF research, and NO  PROFESSORS except Dr Jeff Meldrum, have done out on their own to do such research.
One PhD skeptic, Dr Molly Hanson, did go on a BF expedition, and FOUND TRACKS OF HER OWN,
and became a believer.
In general, in amateur BF res., most alleged researchers do nothing, know nothing and criticize any that do anything.  A seething soup of jealousy. Beware.
Dr Meldrum has a loose advisor relationship to the BIRO site, http://www.bigfoot.org BIRO
He has DROPPED OUT of the BFRO group.
:-)
Jeffry
 If a scientific paper or research is published, then it has been peer reviewed and fact checked for the most part. I would also be leery of books on the subject, unless they have been published by the scientific community. The National Geographic simply quotes another source, they themselves take a neutral stand.--MONGO 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Mongo's point was, that given the previous track record of the random websites you've asked us to vet, it should be pretty easy by now to tell, for yourself, whether or not a given website would be a useful source. android79 06:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: note

message: Jeff feels that ML is missing the point on this page.
The skeptics are CORRECT. There is NO flesh and blood normal animal Bigfoot species. None.
There is no need to try to show that anyone thinks there is a real BF. Because BF is a 
    PHENOMENON and not a normal real animal thing.
10,000 books and sites will not prove it.
What is needed is wormhole research, so see this guy;'s site.   http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse   bigfoot and wormholes
 So, the skeptics WIN!!!  But Bigfoot is beyond their feeble concept.
We need to address THE BIGFOOT PHENOMENON.
Consider this in your editing.  SKEPTICS ARE RIGHT!
But BF is more than that.
Smile,
jeff
:Beckjord, I am one of those that am willing to concede that Bigfoot has a one in 50 chance of being real. This is based on the slim chance that Paranthropus boisei or Paranthropus robustus has survived with only minor evolutionary changes. There is NO evidence that Bigfoot travels through wormholes...only your conjecture...I'm sorry, but that is the best I can state it.--MONGO 10:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beckjord, your first task is to stop pretending to be "Jeff" and the "DrJoe Editing Consortium" and whatever other names you've used for yourself in the past. Using other accounts to create the illusion of broader support for a position is a violation of Wikipedia policy. android79 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, "Jeff", that's not how it works. android79 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Erik, stop pretending to be somebody named "Jeff" and stop threatening us. You will either follow the policies of this project or your edits will be erased soon after they are made, just like they have been for a while now. Following Wikipedia policies is not optional if you want to contribute here. DreamGuy 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overview for Mongo and Martial Law

message: DG will find his wife or gf in bed with his best friend. He will lose the little hair he has left, along with his teeth. Children will throw stones at him on the street. All his mythology
edits will be reverted to the end of time. A movement will start to strip him of his admin.
Jimbo will personally kick him out and ban him forever. Bunchofgrapes will pour rancid butter all over him. Stangers will invite him to go up Brokeback Mountain. A plague of locusts will cover his
beet garden. Dogs will snarl and cats hiss.
James
:So, since we won't let you put the fantasies you support in here, you post this garbage. Nice you can hide behind AOL with it's dynamic IP range...we can block entire ranges of IP's too, you know. Do not engage in any more personal attacks as they will be removed on sight, James, Beckjord...--MONGO 13:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a Gypsy Curse to me. This is NOT any kind of bias,etc. When you investigate paranormal matters, you literally "see it all.". When I saw this, I thought I had seen it all. Martial Law 21:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot hex

message: User:Dreamguy is not a Admin. If you like User:Beckjord, I could have him nominated to become a Admin. Martial Law 10:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beckjord as an admin? You can't be serious. android79 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He meant "If you like, Beckjord, I could have him nominated to become a Admin." ("him" meaning Dreamguy, who Beckjord had fantasized about stripping of nonexistent admin power in his recent weird attack post). —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. Missing comma tripped me up. android79 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:DreamGuy(Excuse the formality), Would you like to be nominated to be a Admin. ? This is your call. Martial Law 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "well, someone who makes personal attacks on him seems to think he already is one, so why not?" is a valid reason to nominate someone for admin status. You already asked me about a month back on my talk page if you should nominate me, and I already declined your offer. Thanks anyway. DreamGuy 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   No, DreamGuy is too immature to be an admin, and Android79 should be stripped of his and go back to being a regular user.
beckjordBeckjord 07:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominate User:Dreamguy to be a Admin.

message: Can someone explain this, and the needle's current position ? Martial Law 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a parody of meta:Wikimood. Someone found it humorous that the parody uses "Bigfoot" as a stress indicator. android79 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimood ?

message: I thought I had seen it all, until now. Martial Law 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hex ?

message: And, surprise surprise, once the semi-protection is lifted, we get an inundation of AOL IPs making the same changes. Semi-protected again. android79 12:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected 

message: You have got to see THIS one. It is allegedly from Sports Illustrated. Link is:
Bigfoot Article in Sports Magazine. Someone found this in a magazine called Sports Illustrated, and submitted it to a Bigfoot organization. Martial Law 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Sports Illustrated

message: User:Beckjord, I have told you the truth, no more, no less. The Bigfoot page is now protected.
Call off this nonsense before you get tossed out like a rot riddled egg. You know I have NOT lied to you at all, and am not lying to you now, will not lie to you. If Jimbo sees this mess, he may have you tossed himself. Like you, I have to follow Wikipedian Protocol myself.
How do you know that they use wormholes, and are'nt they disruptive ? Who is to say that they're beamed down to Earth, and removed, like what is depicted in Star Trek ? After all, some web sites and data sites do mention UFOs seen with Bigfoot, such as the UFO being overhead when a Bigfoot is seen in some of these cases.
Again, you must call off this mess before things really get out of hand. I've seen the results of a really bad Edit War. They make Hiroshima(1945 era) and Nagasaki(1945 era) look good. Martial Law 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people don't understand how bad a Edit War can get. Martial Law 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the last comment, even if you think it's vandalism, it's very true. There is a massive difference between an edit war (Lord knows I've seen enough in my time) and the deaths of tens of thousands of people. While it is true that some conflicts can get nasty and some people like to take things off the internet into real life, it no where is in the scale of that. I'm sorry for the terseness of my other comment, that sort of thing tends to sneak up on me when I see poor hyperboles.--141.157.252.125 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stating how bad things can really get, no more,no less. Martial Law 20:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Other really bad one I've seen is on the "Otherkin" article. That one was a real nightmare.Martial Law 03:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a "Otherkin" ? I've read the article, and I'm still curious about this matter ? Martial Law 02:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Talk:Otherkin, though you'll probably get no more information there, either. I have my own opinions, but in the interest of civility, I'll keep quiet. android79 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TRUTH

message: Is your keypad acting up User:Beckjord ? I had to replace one some time back, and now use one of those wireless models. I had accidentally spilled a coffee into the other keypad, and it was smoking real bad. This may explain some of your typos. Martial Law 02:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've got messages for Beckjord, use his talk page, please. android79 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is..

message: I have blocked 205.208.227.49 for 48 hours for threats and disruption on this page. Also Beckjord, while I was about it.. See this edit for proof that they're the same. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beckjord blocked

message: Visit Bigfoot Controversy .
See if it lasts one day.
Takes pressure off this article, since current editors __refuse__ to mention the issue.
luminary666Luminary666 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has given birth to new article

message: !   Martial Law 09:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: !

message: Ever hear about the Wikipedian version of Martial Law User:Beckjord ? Here, it means the article is permanently "locked down" (protected) and only Admins. and those of higher ranks may edit the locked down article. All it takes is one more Edit War, one more personal attack, and some Admin may initiate the Wikipedian version of Martial Law. Other Editors, such as I will not be permitted to edit the affected article. We will have to recomend any and all edits in the article's discussion page, and hope a Admin will edit what was presented to the said article. This is the Wikipedian version of Martial Law.
As stated, this would be done to negate any and all Edit Wars. Even those editors using sock puppets would be negated on articles that have been placed under "Martial Law", and the Check User tool is also used on any and all suspected sockpuppets.
You want to edit, follow Wikipedian protocol and be civil at all times. I have not lied to you, am not lying to you, will not lie to you. Martial Law 10:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To other Wikipedians: I do apologise for any inconviences this may cause. This is intended to put a stop to any and all Edit wars, rampant vandalisim and personal attacks, etc. that may disrupt Wikipedia. Martial Law 10:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love this site far too much to have it disrupted. Martial Law 10:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  as far as I'm concerned (not that a newbie's opinion matters) this article NEEDS to be locked down. There isn't a single other article on wikipedia that I'd say that about, but this thing is like a freight train full of chlorine that has derailed and is rolling down a hill towards a daycare center. Jafafa Hots 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ever / Wikipedian Martial Law

message: Can I get a ruling on this link: Sasquatch Odyssey Homepage 
This site has a few Bigfoot hunters on it, incl. pixes. If this is a good link, can it be placed ? Martial Law 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an ad. Moriori 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Add Wikipedia:External links to your policy reading list. android79 03:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot Hunters

message: Can I get this examined: Bigfoot Museum Homepage. Is this link a good one ? It appears to be a scholarly link. Martial Law 07:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfoot Museum

message: This link is to a website that examines matters in a scientific manner. Here, they're examining Bigfoot. This link is:How Stuff Works:Bigfoot Martial Law 08:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science Link

message: USA TODAY Article:Bigfoot
This one is from USA TODAY Martial Law 08:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From USA TODAY

message: Bigfoot Discovery Project. Is this one any good ? Martial Law 08:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This one as well

message: Yes. It is a BF museum in Felton,CA. My work is on display.
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really do appreciate the assisstance with these 4 links. Martial Law 21:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template says to discuss any and all changes, incl. these links. Martial Law 00:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would have to agree here with MONGO on this one. Some of the websites you have mentioned are information poor in respects that they seem to "borrow" information from other websites. And some have not been updated with anything new and interesting. The only thing that peaked my interest was the book Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long about the Patterson-Gimlin film being a hoax. He even had the "individual" who wore the suit. It was rather disappointing due to the fact the conclusion he came up with was rather lame and nothing new. MarcusTCicero 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reply

message: Well intentioned, a 7TH dAY aDVENTIST, but on wrong track with 5'10" Bob Hieronimus. An unlikely
hoaxer. Met him. Not impressed. Blind in one eye.
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greg Long

message: Many outsiders come to see the sparks fly.
Beckjord205.208.227.49 09:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is a forum page 

message: You might want to try this website Bigfoot Encounters Martial Law. Has a really good collection of newspaper articles, sightings reports, and other items related to the Bigfoot question. 
Something else you might want to be aware of. And believe you have experienced here is the rift between the different types of bigfoot "researchers". Basicly there is a difference of opinion of if Bigfoot is flesh and blood verses the views already expressed here. And they get heated. There was a really good forum board, Bigfootforums.com, that had some really good discussions going on. However, do to a hacker it is offline for now. Please note, do not mistake this one for the .net one. MarcusTCicero 07:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Suggested Link 

message: Is offline due to nonpayment of server. But there is a link where Beckjord and others 
formerly banned, are raising hell, and nobody there has any decent replies. Try also
http://www.bigfootforums.net forum run by beckjord
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright Erik, let us play nice-nice, ok? Do not cut up posted topics and replies. I do not appreciate people moving my replies around like that unless there is a reason to do so. MarcusTCicero 14:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bigfootforums.com

message: "Earthly f&b" -- means flesh and blood like a dog, bear or human.
"Non-Earthly F&B" = means carries in with it, the F&B traits it had in another universe.
Like not getting killed, telepathy, mind reading, weight of 5000 lbs. Etc.
Memorize, do not forget.
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New terms in Bigfoot world

message: are morons. No capture-will-ever-happen.
Under what rock have you been hiding?  get truth http://www.bigfoot.org
I mean EGADS!
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: all of you who discuss capture

message: Really, where is he ? Martial Law 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he is back.MarcusTCicero 14:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Beckjord ?

message: What is the best weapon to use when hunting something as LARGE as this creature ? Seriously.
I was told that a "Bernudi Slug"(a type of shotgun ammo, which can take out several engine blocks) is the best for this. I favor the explosive round personally. Even a .22 cal bullet can be rigged to be a explosive round. Martial Law 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be wise to offer assistance to anyone reading this on what weapon is the best if they intend to go bigfoot hunting.--MONGO 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martial Law this one of the top ten heavily discussed and debated topics on any forum board about Bigfoot. I have in my travels on the internet forum boards about Bigfoot have read many of these topics concerning types of weapons to use to hunt it. They have ranged from large caliber handguns to field artillery. It sort of one those topics of my gun is bigger than your gun debates. These type of discussion topics do get rather humorous after awhile. MarcusTCicero 12:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you know why Law Enforcement does'nt want people hunting this thing, other than someone getting hurt or even killed by someone who'll shoot first, ask questions later. Rural people will shoot and kill tresspassers, since there is hardly any law enforcement in rural areas. Martial Law 07:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is a bit of sterotype regarding Rural people shooting tresspassers. Actually you more likely to get shot during hunting season by the people who travel from the big city to go hunting. I have witnessed some of these idots do things that I wish law enforcement was around to arrest them. And most likely it would be the Wildlife Division responsible with the protection and enforcement when it comes to wildlife issues. MarcusTCicero 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you do if you had seen this thing ? After all, I've seen many documentaries on TV, heard on the radio that skeptics actually want a body of this thing. Reason is this: Pixes can be faked, people could be lying or are idiots, evidence is sparse at best. Now you know why people will try to bring in a body, in spite of what law enforcement indicates, in spite of laws against taking a Bigfoot in some areas of the world. Only being truthful, no more, no less. Martial Law 08:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I saw this thing? Hmmm? I hope that I have my camera, instead of weapon, and clean shorts, LOL. MarcusTCicero 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do apologise if I had been in error at all. Martial Law 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No errors at all, it good to question rather than just accept things blindly. MarcusTCicero 13:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, I am in a rural area, and the people here will shoot and kill intruders. Cheers. Martial Law 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guns

message: GOD! --- don't you get it? Bigfoot (hairy humanoids) can-not-be-killed!
Not even a 20 mm cannon, or an 8 inch shell.
Under WHAT ROCK have you been hiding?
beckjord205.208.227.49 09:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning sarcastic remark, Thank you for those kind words and comments, the Morons of the world appreciate it, end of sarcastic remark. Why must you throw insults at others? Didn't your mother tell you it that it isn't nice to call others names? MarcusTCicero 13:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: all of you are morons who discuss guns

message: This tool may be useful in monitoring vandalism rates and deciding whether to lift semi-protection status. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monitoring vandalism

message: Your head is so far up your ###  it not even amusing. Sadly, your POV is typical here.
State the "reliable sources" and state what things you think I  want them to say. That means you use words, and write them here, not just implications and hints.
Bigfooty (hairy humanoids) are/is a murky topic and little is, proven. The sleptics so far, are correct that ther is no verified zoological Bigfoot species. On this I agree. I wonder if you read this and are not just dashing about reverting things all over? 
Now, STATE THE RELIABLE SOURCES . Who are they  and why are they reliable?
(This is sooooooooo fucked.) Do I assume good will? Hell no. Are wikians nice? Nope.
Now, for all you idiots here, which is 90%, here is what I am trying to do, which most of you ignore, and gloss over in your mad rush to have power with no credentials and no names, by reverting all over, all over, all over, all pages.
"The goal of most Wikians is NOT to write good articles, but rather to get power so they can 
freeze articles, do more reverts, and tell ordinary users what to do, which in meatspace,
they cannot do, being nobodies with no names."  --Jon-Erik Beckjord
Bold text I SEEK ONE OR TWO INTELLIGENT ADMINS OR BUREACRATS WHO REALLY, REALLY WANT
THE BIGFOOT AND PG FILM ARTICLES TO BE ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. I can submit info and references to  them, and they can insert them into the articles, with proper wikian references. I am writing a book and a screenpaly for tv, and have no time to waste becoming a good Wiki editor. Let others who know, do that. I am really doing wiki a favor by this, and anyone who thinks this is all a game 
on MY part, is simply deluded. I just see bad,bad,bad, outdatedinfo, and weird power-hungry
anonymous freaks playing power trip games. I have zero respect for 90% of the people I see here.
I'm looking for some actual "INTELLIGENT" PEOPLE who have an interest in the topic.
Contact me at rudy@stealthaccess.net for privacy, or on my user page or here, if you really want 
everybody to see what you do and think, which is realllly weird, imho.
I do this since BF page is really a popular page, and may be getting more hits than any Bigfoot
site anywhere. Yet, Wiki feeds the readers old, old, outdated info by really bad authors, like Pyle, (not an ecologist, BTW) instead of John Green or Peter Guttilla. Bold text
beckjord205.208.227.49 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beckjord...no personal attacks. Nothing you want in the articles will ever be in there under any circumstance if all you do is call everyone an idiot, or state things like "Your head is so far up your ###  it not even amusing". That kind of behavior doesn't have to be tolerated by anyone and that is why their is arbitration filed against you.--MONGO 07:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: totally wrong grapeboy

message: Martial Law, It seems you are some what interested in the Bigfoot question. I would suggest that you look into a couple books that help with understanding it. One, I will highly recommend is John Green's book, Sasquatch - Apes Among Us. This is a prized book by those who do research and investigations into this. John Green spent some time in gathering information and witness stories. It is sort of a primer for those who are really into finding a answer. Another is Chris Murphy's book, Meet the Sasquatch. Another interesting book to read. It approachs the question from the researcher point of view. I think you would find them both a great read and help with all these questions you have. Good luck and happy hunting MarcusTCicero 03:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Are you a Coast To Coast AM listener ? a Jeff Rense radio show listener ? These two shows have, from time to time, various Bigfoot researchers, and on the Coast To Coast AM show, the listeners are permitted to call in to ask questions, report their experiences, as long as there is NO profanity/obscene language involved. Martial Law 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did listen to the Jeff Rense show when the the book by Greg Long, Making of Bigfoot, came out. This was going to the tell all book about Roger Patterson and the infamous footage. Instead of being a run away best seller, it flopped.MarcusTCicero 05:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Martial Law, Bigfoot Question  

message: Link is: Bigfoot Investigative Organization. Is this one credible ?
Function of this is to investigate any and all Bigfoot reports, and conduct research. Martial Law 08:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope...they are just trying to get your money from you.--MONGO 08:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one link that is definately going nowhere. Martial Law 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: I saw this and it is a good idea.:
Quote: (Beckjord) I SEEK ONE OR TWO INTELLIGENT ADMINS OR BUREACRATS WHO REALLY, REALLY WANT THE BIGFOOT AND PG FILM ARTICLES TO BE ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. I can submit info and references to them, and they can insert them into the articles, with proper wikian references. I am writing a book and a screenpaly for tv, and have no time to waste becoming a good Wiki editor. Let others who know, do that. I am really doing wiki a favor by this, and anyone who thinks this is all a game on MY part, is simply deluded. I just see bad,bad,bad, outdatedinfo, and weird power-hungry anonymous freaks playing power trip games. I have zero respect for 90% of the people I see here. I'm looking for some actual "INTELLIGENT" PEOPLE who have an interest in the topic. Contact me at rudy@stealthaccess.net for privacy, or on my user page or here, if you really want everybody to see what you do and think, which is realllly weird, imho.
I do this since BF page is really a popular page, and may be getting more hits than any Bigfoot site anywhere. Yet, Wiki feeds the readers old, old, outdated info by really bad authors, like Pyle, (a dilettante, BTW) instead of John Green or Peter Guttilla. 
>>>an idea whose time has come<<<
Jacob
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
:Just because Pyle didn't try to milk his whistling midnight visitor's footprints for cash doesn't make him a dilettante, it makes him a biologist who is wary of hoaxes.  Ruby 21:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to intelligent admins, bureaucrats, etc for edit

message: Who are these two personnel: John Green and Peter Guttilla ? Martial Law 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who are...

message: 1) many reports change the date and even location, to "protect" Bigfoot
from shooters. I doubt anyone is fishing in January, but that may be the reason.
The basic report jibes well with thousands of others. Vist http://www.bfro.net
or http://www.bfro.org for 10,000 reports. Ignore the owner, see the reports.
2) To many, the world is black or white. But there is grey. Yes, there is NO 
acceptable zoological evidence for Bigfoot. Yet, it is seen often, and even photogaphed. Why? Perhaps, maybe, as a theory, they may come in via space-time, as ufos may also. And have non-earthly f&b char. See wiki's  most famous
BF researcher on this http://www.beckjord.com/wormholesinuse   If it was good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for you. Remember, this is NOT proven fact. Never said it was. Got that?
I did love Lucy
:Speaking of Einstein, I see you have adopted his advice where he said "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." As soon as someone points out the absurdity of your "facts" that two people were in an area that they could not get to, fishing in the middle of winter, early in the morning when it was as cold as charity, when it was as dark as the inside of a cow (pre mutilation), and they watched something walk the entire length of a ridge - you change the "facts". Anyway Becky, at least you agree there is no zoological evidence for Biggie. Can we quote you on the Biggie page?
_____________________________________________________
:Beckjord, you know the drill. This is not verifiable. android79 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: kindly reply to Moriori

message: Just complying w/ the template. Martial Law 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection Template

message: where???
#$@%^&*()
===Smokey Crabtree===
Can I get a ruling on this link ? Smokey's Book about the Fouke, Arkansas Monster Martial Law 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to link to a book that has never ever been sold in bookstores? Moriori 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bravo! Smokey Crabtree is a full of **** like Android79. Another ARK. bser like Clinton.
Just words, words, words. "Ah deed this and Ah seen thet" etc.
Moriori how about you doing a cleanup here and connecting the proposed changes with references that are mentioned from the authors at bottom?  Most people here are dead-head cop types who
love to use unearned authority. Maybe you can assist.
zz
That template says I have to bring any info here first. Martial Law 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Need help here. Just complying w/ this template. Martial Law 07:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHAT TEMPLATE?

message: Can I get a ruling on this link ? Smokey's Book about the Fouke, Arkansas Monster Martial Law 06:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you want to link to a book that has never ever been sold in bookstores? Moriori 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bravo! Smokey Crabtree is a full of **** like Android79. Another ARK. bser like Clinton.
Just words, words, words. "Ah deed this and Ah seen thet" etc.
Moriori how about you doing a cleanup here and connecting the proposed changes with references that are mentioned from the authors at bottom?  Most people here are dead-head cop types who
love to use unearned authority. Maybe you can assist.
zz
That template says I have to bring any info here first. Martial Law 06:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Need help here. Just complying w/ this template. Martial Law 07:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Smokey Crabtree

message: This is from the Arkansas Travel a state tourisim magazine:Arkansas Tourist magazine: Fouke Monster Martial Law 06:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Arkansas Travel

message: This is from one of Arkanasas's news archives:Fouke Monster in the news Martial Law 07:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From...

message: This is from the Texarkana Gazette:From the Texarkana Gazette: The Fouke Monster, Arkansas's Bigfoot Martial Law 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the ''Texarkana Gazette''

message: Bigfoot has been reported in China. Dr Frank Poirer, Ohio State Un Anthro.
Many articles in International Society of Cryptozoology.
Also RUSSIA. Dmitri bayanov, "On the Track of the Russian Snowman."
Also Austalia. The famed Yowie.
WHY IS THIS EDIT BEING RESISTED? Android79? DreamGuy? 
Why do you resist this addition? It is ALL OVER THE LITERATURE.
It is like denying 2+2=4 
bf RESEARCHER
:Show me the DNA analysis.  Ruby 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What addition? android79 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Beckjord, you'll need the link that states what you're stating, so it can be examined. I have to, due to a template on this article, state links and the like here first. Martial Law 01:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only being truthful here, nothing more, nothing less. Martial Law 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is on the article itself, has a depiction of a padlock in it. It is in the top of the article. Lets keep things civil, shall we.
Martial Law 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request approval

message: any way to find out?  Relative popularity within Wiki page. Wiki is said to be no. 34
in web ranking. How many hits a day is this? What is best estimate of Bigfoot article hits?
WHO WILL BE A HERO AND RESEARCH THIS?
adurrruuff,
:I don't think we have any tools to actually tell us that. I've never seen info regarding page hits for any particular Wikipedia page. The answer might be fewer than you'd expect — Wikipedia as a whole may be the #34 web site, but we've got almost a million articles now...  —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your other issue - could you write up something neutral (ie, something that doesn't take Bigfoot's existence as a given) regarding Bigfoot in other countries, citing specific page numbers in your resources, and also, perhaps, addressing confusion with yetis or other non-bigfoot cryptozoological entities? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a Google Search: Wikipedia/Bigfoot Hits. Done this. It gets a estimated 10,000 hits a day. Martial Law 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHO KNOWS HOW MANY HITS THIS BIGFOOT ARTICLE GETS PER DAY?

message: neVer take Bigfoot as a given. We are always careful to say "the alleged Bigfoot" or the "unproven
bigfoot". IOHO, the other negative editors REFUSE TO TAKE NOTE OF THAT. Anyway, the "so called Bigfoot", the unproven Bigfoot, is alleged to have been seen (what nonsense to do this..), maybe, 
in an unproven way, (got it?) in China, in Russia, in Australia, in South America.
You know, whenever we mention the word Bigfoot, it is ALWAYS A GIVEN that this is an unproven animal.So, it is NOT proven, it is Not a fact, it is not verified by zoologists. OK??
ok???  ok???OK?????   Jesus!!!!!! You pedants. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, NOT PROVEN!!!!!
christ!!!!CHRIST!!!!!JESUS!!!!!OK???????????????????
Now, you want references? We have put these in 500 times.
John Green (listed below), Dr John Bindernagel, (listed below) Dmitri Bayanov (listed below)
these are all in the master list of books as references below IN THIS ARTICLE.
And frankly, none of you are going to buy one of these books and search for the page.
But all of them list this.  WHY IS THIS SUCH AN ISSUE?????????????
And note the alleged Bigfoot is often the same as the alleged Yowie, the Alleged Ye-ren, 
and the alleged unproven ALMAS.  Just different names for the same this,until proven otherwise.
Did you assume that because a different name is used, that this makes it a "different" animal or creature?
We need some Bigfoot-savvy editors.  None here so far.
Now, you want to gave wrong info to 10,000 people a day?  LOOKS LIKE YOU DO.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUMPH!
::::Do a Google Search: Wikipedia/Bigfoot Hits. Done this. It gets a estimated 10,000 hits a day. Martial Law 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: we on the editing coop

message: We still need the source info. that you are citing. Is it a newspaper ? Is it a website ? Please be civil. Martial Law 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still need