Merged Bigfoot follies

[LAL]

Why that’s rather skeptical of you!

>twirls mustache<

Actually I am a sceptic. I just happen to think the sceptical stance on this one is incorrect.

There are sceptics among the "enthusiasts", too, where one may think the Patterson Film was somehow hoaxed, e.g., but not some other piece of evidence. It makes for healthy debate.
Isn't that how science works?

I think what you’re saying here is correct. It’s always best to reserve judgment and attempt to gather more evidence. Especially if your goal is to prove something that was heretofore a myth is in fact a reality.

I don't think they were ever a myth. I think some of the Indian legends were based on a reality. Native people don't always make a big distinction between real animals and spirits.
As for modern sightings, most seem rather mundane (one crossed a road, two were seen eating willow leaves, one was seen by the railroad track..........) They don't have that "Gee whiz" quality one finds in a good myth.

But gathering evidence does not mean finding ways to bolster one hypothesis over another. A scientific theory *must* be falsifiable. A hypothesis *must* be driven by evidence and not by imagination or wishful thinking.

The physical evidence so far has nothing to do with imagination. I don't think Krantz' methodology had anything to do with "wishful thinking". He may have wished he hadn't found what he found.

It also does not rule out action by the other two legged mega-fauna that inhabits every region that Bigfoot is said to roam. We can be sure that there is *some* physical manifestation that creates Bigfoot events, what that actually is we cannot be sure.

This seems to be the only reasonable course, at least to myself

Well, to get back to the incident that started this thread, has anyone come up with the 10' wading hoaxer from Nelson Creek yet?

 

[erikbeckjord]

>twirls mustache<

Actually I am a sceptic. I just happen to think the sceptical stance on this one is incorrect.

There are sceptics among the "enthusiasts", too, where one may think the Patterson Film was somehow hoaxed, e.g., but not some other piece of evidence. It makes for healthy debate.
Isn't that how science works?


[/B]

I don't think they were ever a myth. I think some of the Indian legends were based on a reality. Native people don't always make a big distinction between real animals and spirits.
As for modern sightings, most seem rather mundane (one crossed a road, two were seen eating willow leaves, one was seen by the railroad track..........) They don't have that "Gee whiz" quality one finds in a good myth.



[/B]

The physical evidence so far has nothing to do with imagination. I don't think Krantz' methodology had anything to do with "wishful thinking". He may have wished he hadn't found what he found.



Well, to get back to the incident that started this thread, has anyone come up with the 10' wading hoaxer from Nelson Creek yet? [/B]

wake up -- bf theories are based on evidence of various types. Bigfoot did not come BEFORE the data.
The three theories are a) no such, b) f&b animal, c) supernatural with ability to manifest.

Now a) is nonsense -- there IS something there, but what? well, B or C.

after 1406 years of no body, B does not wash. This leaves C since there is evidence of paranromal activity,

99% of you will not be convinced.But then, I did take the SECRETARY OF LA SKEPTICS
on an overnight bf campout in AZ, and SHE FOUND TRACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[erikbeckjord]

Wrong. Indians do make a distinction between real animals and spiritual animals and beings. What [/B] Let's call LAL Ms LU WOO.

 

[LAL]

Wrong. Indians do make a distinction between real animals and spiritual animals and beings. What Let's call LAL Ms LU WOO. [/B]

http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/loreindx.html

 

[LAL]

wake up -- bf theories are based on evidence of various types. Bigfoot did not come BEFORE the data.
The three theories are a) no such, b) f&b animal, c) supernatural with ability to manifest.

Now a) is nonsense -- there IS something there, but what? well, B or C.

after 1406 years of no body, B does not wash. This leaves C since there is evidence of paranromal activity,

99% of you will not be convinced.But then, I did take the SECRETARY OF LA SKEPTICS
on an overnight bf campout in AZ, and SHE FOUND TRACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There have been no bodies brought in, you mean. Green has five reports of them being killed and at least one of a body being found. Where do you get 1406 years? Is that when they allegedly migrated over the Bering Strait or something?

Did the tracks she saw suddenly disappear? (Far be it from me to suggest someone planting tracks for her to see got tired and didn't want to make any more.) Strange as it seems, there are reports from Arizona.

You haven't explained how "spiritual beings" leave tracks with dermal ridges.

Evidence of paranormal activity? In your dreams.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

>twirls mustache<

Actually I am a sceptic. I just happen to think the sceptical stance on this one is incorrect.
[/B]

Thus is the paradox of all so-called believers. (did you hear that turtle?)

There are sceptics among the "enthusiasts", too, where one may think the Patterson Film was somehow hoaxed, e.g., but not some other piece of evidence. It makes for healthy debate.
Isn't that how science works?

[/B]

Of course it is. The P/G film is an intriguing chunk of data, nothing more. By itself it cannot lead to the classification of a new kind of fauna. That there is a debate in the BF is a healthy thing. But at this time I wonder if that chunk of data is really that significant.

I don't think they were ever a myth. I think some of the Indian legends were based on a reality. Native people don't always make a big distinction between real animals and spirits.
As for modern sightings, most seem rather mundane (one crossed a road, two were seen eating willow leaves, one was seen by the railroad track..........) They don't have that "Gee whiz" quality one finds in a good myth.


[/B]

Weeell… yes and no. Native American myths and legends are not unlike most bodies of oral history. It’s not a good idea to ignore them but it’s also a big mistake to take them at face value. Just like people five hundred years from now will (hopefully) not take the current Star Wars mythos as somehow factual. True that it (like all works of fiction) takes some portion of our culture and tosses it back in an altered form.

The physical evidence so far has nothing to do with imagination. I don't think Krantz' methodology had anything to do with "wishful thinking". He may have wished he hadn't found what he found.
[/B]

Not evidence itself, the interpretation of the evidence. When the interpretation becomes subject to imagination you get stuff like your friend Beckjord out there.

Well, to get back to the incident that started this thread, has anyone come up with the 10' wading hoaxer from Nelson Creek yet? [/B]

At forty feet the human eye becomes iffy on estimating size unless there is some object to draw a comparison. Cameras are even worse because they tend to compress and distort object sizes. Is there something in the video establishing that the figure is ten feet tall?

 

[LAL]

Thus is the paradox of all so-called believers. (did you hear that turtle?)

Even sceptics believe in something, even if it's only in the truth of their own disbelief. (Did that make any sense?)

Of course it is. The P/G film is an intriguing chunk of data, nothing more. By itself it cannot lead to the classification of a new kind of fauna. That there is a debate in the BF is a healthy thing. But at this time I wonder if that chunk of data is really that significant.

If it indeed shows what it seems to show and the surviving witness is honest, as he certainly seems to be, then, yes, it's footage of an unidentified hominid primate, and that's significant.

Weeell… yes and no. Native American myths and legends are not unlike most bodies of oral history. It’s not a good idea to ignore them but it’s also a big mistake to take them at face value. Just like people five hundred years from now will (hopefully) not take the current Star Wars mythos as somehow factual. True that it (like all works of fiction) takes some portion of our culture and tosses it back in an altered form.

The letter from the missionary does not seem to refer to some mythical creatures the Indians were describing. Have you seen it?
It was in one of Green's books, I believe. I've found it online.

Not evidence itself, the interpretation of the evidence. When the interpretation becomes subject to imagination you get stuff like your friend Beckjord out there.

My friend? Good grief. I've insulted him (and he me) on the board and in reply to his even stranger PM's and you think he's my friend? He gives a bad name to the effort and no respectable researcher will have anything to do with him.
He's not interpreting evidence; he's in a world of his own.

At forty feet the human eye becomes iffy on estimating size unless there is some object to draw a comparison. Cameras are even worse because they tend to compress and distort object sizes. Is there something in the video establishing that the figure is ten feet tall?

The water is 3-4 feet deep where it was wading, which puts the figure at 9-10'. (Bobby Clarke's sister said 4', so going by that, it's about 10') It's large even by Sasquatch standards.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Even sceptics believe in something, even if it's only in the truth of their own disbelief. (Did that make any sense?)

[/B]

If it indeed shows what it seems to show and the surviving witness is honest, as he certainly seems to be, then, yes, it's footage of an unidentified hominid primate, and that's significant.



[/B]

The letter from the missionary does not seem to refer to some mythical creatures the Indians were describing. Have you seen it?
It was in one of Green's books, I believe. I've found it online.

[/B]

My friend? Good grief. I've insulted him (and he me) on the board and in reply to his even stranger PM's and you think he's my friend? He gives a bad name to the effort and no respectable researcher will have anything to do with him.
He's not interpreting evidence; he's in a world of his own.





The water is 3-4 feet deep where it was wading, which puts the figure at 9-10'. (Bobby Clarke's sister said 4', so going by that, it's about 10') It's large even by Sasquatch standards. [/B]

Reply: the most respectable researcher is JOHN GREEN. He is my buddy and I have slept at his house,. We talk every two weeks. LAL has her head up you know where. BONK!

AND -- WHO ARE THE 'RESPECTABLE RESEARCHERS" ????? WHO???????NAME THEM! All people who did nothing, and who never saw a BF.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Even sceptics believe in something, even if it's only in the truth of their own disbelief. (Did that make any sense?)

[/B]

If it indeed shows what it seems to show and the surviving witness is honest, as he certainly seems to be, then, yes, it's footage of an unidentified hominid primate, and that's significant.



[/B]

The letter from the missionary does not seem to refer to some mythical creatures the Indians were describing. Have you seen it?
It was in one of Green's books, I believe. I've found it online.

[/B]

My friend? Good grief. I've insulted him (and he me) on the board and in reply to his even stranger PM's and you think he's my friend? He gives a bad name to the effort and no respectable researcher will have anything to do with him.
He's not interpreting evidence; he's in a world of his own.



QUOTE: If it indeed shows what it seems to show and the surviving witness is honest, as he certainly seems to be, then, yes, it's footage of an unidentified hominid primate, and that's significant.






The water is 3-4 feet deep where it was wading, which puts the figure at 9-10'. (Bobby Clarke's sister said 4', so going by that, it's about 10') It's large even by Sasquatch standards. [/B]

IT IS NOT A HOMINID PRIMATE.!!!!!!!!! Not f&b, not real animal. Get real --- because it is not.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Thus is the paradox of all so-called believers. (did you hear that turtle?)



Of course it is. The P/G film is an intriguing chunk of data, nothing more. By itself it cannot lead to the classification of a new kind of fauna. That there is a debate in the BF is a healthy thing. But at this time I wonder if that chunk of data is really that significant.




Weeell… yes and no. Native American myths and legends are not unlike most bodies of oral history. It’s not a good idea to ignore them but it’s also a big mistake to take them at face value. Just like people five hundred years from now will (hopefully) not take the current Star Wars mythos as somehow factual. True that it (like all works of fiction) takes some portion of our culture and tosses it back in an altered form.




Not evidence itself, the interpretation of the evidence. When the interpretation becomes subject to imagination you get stuff like your friend Beckjord out there.



At forty feet the human eye becomes iffy on estimating size unless there is some object to draw a comparison. Cameras are even worse because they tend to compress and distort object sizes. Is there something in the video establishing that the figure is ten feet tall?

reply: nobody ever ever said the PG Film established a new species. It does not. No matter what Lu Woo (LAL) says...

 

[erikbeckjord]

There have been no bodies brought in, you mean. Green has five reports of them being killed and at least one of a body being found. Where do you get 1406 years? Is that when they allegedly migrated over the Bering Strait or something?

Did the tracks she saw suddenly disappear? (Far be it from me to suggest someone planting tracks for her to see got tired and didn't want to make any more.) Strange as it seems, there are reports from Arizona.

You haven't explained how "spiritual beings" leave tracks with dermal ridges.

Evidence of paranormal activity? In your dreams.

Reply to extreme dense-ness...spritual beings may be able, like Bigfoot, to manifest as solid, shake doors, rattle chains, scream,leave tracks, be seen. BONK!! Reply: 1406 yrs.... dating from epic poem BEOWULF ref Grendel the Danish BF.

 

[erikbeckjord]

CONDUCTING BF 601

SEEMS I HAVE TO EDUCATE LU-WOO (LAL) AS WELL AS YOU OTHER GUYS,....SNORT!

 

[erikbeckjord]

You mean Alton Higgins? Who said he's a scientist? I wasn't referring to him. Dr. Fish was a zoologist. I hope he isn't discredited just for being dead.



The fee varies. I would gladly pay it. It would be the best vacation I ever had and a lot cheaper than a trip to the Bahamas. I've had good reports on the experience, especially the educational features.



Especially you. I expect you to back up each and every one of your claims and then explain why you are permanently banned from BigfootForums.com. Anyone mentioning your name finds the post altered (Voldemort) and may receive a warning.




"Beckjord has been arrested at, banned from, and thrown out of almost
every serious scientific Sasquatch and cryptozoology meeting he has
attended. Beckjord even took to wearing an alien mask at one such
gathering in 1999."


-- Loren Coleman

You look like.....what?

rE PHOTO ==== YES, WOMEN DO PAY MY WAY, ALWAYS , TO LOCH NESS AND BF PLACES.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Get help.

REPLY:

PEOPLE WHO WORK IN MENTAL WARDS ARE THERE TO FIGURE OUT THEIR OWN PROBLEMS....

SUCH AS LU-WOO......(LAL)

You need help...ask the staff for counselling.

EB...

 

[erikbeckjord]

IOW, he didn't agree with you.



Reconstruction by Dr. Grover Krantz based on large Chinese male fossil jaw, assuming bipedal posture and ape-sized brain below. The Patterson creature was female. There seems to be sexual dimorphism in what appears to be a flesh and blood species, assuming they exist. I would expect a female's jaw to be lighter, but without the PGF creature's jawbone for comparison, it's difficult to tell.

You're saying no one would fake dermal ridges but shapeshifters leave them? Geez.

reply:What a load. Krantz has no right to make this reconstruction. There are NO cranial remains of giganto. Lu-Woo reads all the wrong books. And the JAWS OF GIGANTO DO NOT MATCH, DO NOT MATCH, DO NOT MATCH PG FILM BF. IS NOT GIGANTO. BONK! BONK! BONK!

 

[erikbeckjord]

what is wrong with LU-Woo

She takes old bf books and assumes these are TEXTBOOKS... they are not. Just speculation.

BONK!

 

[erikbeckjord]

empire of the odd

Why that’s rather skeptical of you!

I think what you’re saying here is correct. It’s always best to reserve judgment and attempt to gather more evidence. Especially if your goal is to prove something that was heretofore a myth is in fact a reality.

But gathering evidence does not mean finding ways to bolster one hypothesis over another. A scientific theory *must* be falsifiable. A hypothesis *must* be driven by evidence and not by imagination or wishful thinking.

It also does not rule out action by the other two legged mega-fauna that inhabits every region that Bigfoot is said to roam. We can be sure that there is *some* physical manifestation that creates Bigfoot events, what that actually is we cannot be sure.

This seems to be the only reasonable course, at least to myself

No wishful thinking. What you do not get is that I have done maybe 512 exeditions over 29 yrs. Fieldwork. What I report to you, is based on empirical observations. Nothing I say is imagination. It is data.

 

[Cleon]

rE PHOTO ==== YES, WOMEN DO PAY MY WAY, ALWAYS , TO LOCH NESS AND BF PLACES.

Oh, Nessie's a shapeshifting alien too? We seem to have a lot of those running around...

 

[LAL]

REPLY:

PEOPLE WHO WORK IN MENTAL WARDS ARE THERE TO FIGURE OUT THEIR OWN PROBLEMS....

SUCH AS LU-WOO......(LAL)

You need help...ask the staff for counselling.

EB...

I do not work in a "mental ward", but I'm pretty good at spotting mental illness, especially when it's this evident.
Of course, if you're not ill and are merely being obnoxious, you're a troll and it may be time to stop feeding you.

This is unique. I'm being called a "woo" by a "woo".

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Even sceptics believe in something, even if it's only in the truth of their own disbelief. (Did that make any sense?)

[/B]

Sort of; Carl Sagon’s wife said something about her late husband that seems to make sense to me. “You see,” she said “Carl didn’t want to believe, he wanted to *know.*

I have no desire to *believe* in Bigfoot no matter what the evidence might be. I want them to be written up in the 2010 issue of Mammals of the American North West . I want its picture to be on Time Magazine. I want to be able to browse a web page with crisp-clean photos and films of the dang things fishing or whatever the hell they do. I don’t want to base a belief on some crappy piece of 16mm film that shows some dark shambling thing striding into the sunset. I want facts not beliefs. I want knowledge not beliefs

Does that make sense?

If it indeed shows what it seems to show and the surviving witness is honest, as he certainly seems to be, then, yes, it's footage of an unidentified hominid primate, and that's significant.


[/B]

I agree. The only thing that can happen regarding the G/P film is vindication. I don’t think there is much more data that can be wrung out of it. We might have better enhancement games down the road but I don’t think there is any way to remove the “ifs” in your question. Not without a specimen.

The letter from the missionary does not seem to refer to some mythical creatures the Indians were describing. Have you seen it?
It was in one of Green's books, I believe. I've found it online.


[/B]

I’ve seen things like that. Once again; oral history is not really compelling by itself. Stories of forest wild-men are nearly universal in the lexicon of human lore, along with lots of other stuff.

My friend? Good grief. I've insulted him (and he me) on the board and in reply to his even stranger PM's and you think he's my friend? He gives a bad name to the effort and no respectable researcher will have anything to do with him.
He's not interpreting evidence; he's in a world of his own.


[/B]

Heh! Don’t go all literal on me now.
I know you two are at loggerheads on several issues. But you both seem to agree on a *belief* of Bigfoot which (to my way of thinking) does not seem to based on compelling evidence.

The water is 3-4 feet deep where it was wading, which puts the figure at 9-10'. (Bobby Clarke's sister said 4', so going by that, it's about 10') It's large even by Sasquatch standards. [/B]

Too many ifs. Are the witnesses reliable? Were measurements taken at the scene? What do we have in the video that provides scale? How can we tell that the figure is standing in a place where the water is four feet deep? Remember you really can’t accurately measure distance/location on a flat presentation without mechanical aids. (for example if a six foot man stood in exactly the same spot, would the water be up to his chest.) But then, how can one tell where the exact spot is?