Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAL said:
"Accepted scientific knowlege" changes frequently in light of new evidence.
True.
I don't think there is any "accepted scientific knowlege" on this.
Semantic inanity.
Got citations?
You're the one with the "new evidence". If you can provide me that evidence using a click-path that doesn't rely on a random, anonymous bozo (i.e. the postman and you) I will be glad to consider it. You know, scientific journals, magazines, newspapers... that sort of thing.
 
Re: Re: Re: Bigfoot Hoaxer

Diogenes said:
Oh good grief. Where did anyone say that Goodall's previous work was discredited ..

Any work that she does in the future, and presents for review, will surely be judged on it's own merits by the scientific community.


Like you, a TV show is trying to give credibility to their woo, by attaching the name and ( mostly out of context ) appearance of a respected researcher to it.

Have you actually read or heard what she said regarding unidentified hominids or are you just assuming she knows what she's talking about except on that topic?

I've taken nothing out of context. Do I have to post the links again?
 
I'm reviewing the evidence you've posted here and found an excellent example why certain "evidence" doesn't make it TO square one, much less past it.

Did you notice that you posted a link to "evidence" consisting solely of:

1) A non-substanative, one sentence teaser

2) A $10 fee for the article

I get it. You're a jokester.
 
varwoche said:
True.
Semantic inanity.
You're the one with the "new evidence". If you can provide me that evidence using a click-path that doesn't rely on a random, anonymous bozo (i.e. the postman and you) I will be glad to consider it. You know, scientific journals, magazines, newspapers... that sort of thing.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

http://www.heraldnet.com/bigfoot/story13353257.cfm

http://www.isubengal.com/media/pape.../Isu-Professor.On.Bigfoots.Trail-304928.shtml

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v18n1a5.php

http://www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staff/meldrum_d.htm

I used to live here:

http://www.inthegorge.com/bigfoot_reports.htm

As you may be aware, newspaper articles get archived rather quickly. Reprints of articles from newspapers and magazines can be found on websites devoted to Sasquatches (surprise!). The BFRO is headed by an attorney. Does that count? Is an attorney better than a postmaster?

Read this, please:

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/green_keynote.html

I've tolerated being called a "woo", but "bozo" is going a bit far. Why don't you stop that?
 
varwoche said:
I'm reviewing the evidence you've posted here and found an excellent example why certain "evidence" doesn't make it TO square one, much less past it.

Did you notice that you posted a link to "evidence" consisting solely of:

1) A non-substanative, one sentence teaser

2) A $10 fee for the article

I get it. You're a jokester.

It was working last time I checked it. All the Nelson Creek stories were. I can probably find you a reprint, but it'll be on a blog. Is that acceptable?
 
Diogenes said:
Mailbox, ( or do you prefer Mr 1282000 ? )

I trust you caught this thread

Jane Goodall Ambushed on Animal Planet LAL Has been dropping Dr. Goodall's name quite often, based on statements to the effect of " Bigfoot/Sasquatch et al ,merits further investigation "..


This translates as " being polite " , rather than just saying " I don't have time for this.. "..


Thanks for the link to the thread. I'm glad to know she probably hasn't lost her marbles.


I really don't understand your translation, however. Her grants are for Chimpanzee studies. If someone would kindly give her a grant for Sasquatch studies, she might be inclined to accept.

A few people whose reputations are so solid they have nothing to fear from sceptical ridicule have come out in favor of more investigation. I "dropped" their names too. Was Goodall's the only one you've heard of?
 
Thank you for the links LAL. I intend to read them however it may be a few days before I get back.

Too bad though that you persist in this self-centered inanity...
LAL said:
I've tolerated being called a "woo", but "bozo" is going a bit far. Why don't you stop that?
I made it quite clear that "random bozo" is a term I rhetorically applied to all posters here, myself included.

On the other hand and in fact, you impress me as being on the dim end of the random bozo spectrum.

Can you tell the difference between the rhetoric I applied to both of us, versus this clear insult?
 
The Odd Emperor said:
I can’t speak for “skeptics,” They are after all, individuals and not some monolithic force. I can speak for myself though. I believe shooting one is not really necessary (other than with a camera.) A dead specimen would put the issue to rest but a live one or some good photos would do just as well.

Otherwise, it really doesn’t matter. The day that Bigfoot transforms from a splendid mystery into to a big stinky ape running around the North American woods is not going to change my life significantly.



Me too. I’m willing to bet that they can take the best cameras money can buy, or the cheapest Wal-Mart piece of junk and still get nothing but inconclusive, blurry photos. Want to give me odds that I’m wrong?



There's a very good photo of a Bondo/Bili ape that walked into a camera trap. They were thought to not exist too.
Remember, the photos so far were obtained by people who were startled, rattled, running........one was crying from fear as he tried to get closer. Clarke had his camcorder on auto-focus; it focused on branches. There's no reason a team with proper equipment, expertise and a ton of good luck couldn't get clear pictures.



(yuck o)




I hope not.

Stuff like this though? It tends to drag on for generations. Everyone thinks they have the answer, everyone thinks the Bigfoot’s over the next hill and the aliens are just about to land.

It never seems to happen.

If the Yerkes Primate Center, or the Smithsonian, or any accredited university had sent a team to Bluff Creek in 1967, it could have been settled decades ago.

I really wish people wouldn't keep throwing this in with UFO's and paranormal nonsense and the ever-popular Loch Ness monster.

Over 130 billion gallaxies (give or take a few) have been counted, so far. The building blocks of life are common in the universe. There likely is life elsewhere and intelligent life may have evolved a number of times. But life able to travel those incredible distances, skim over McMinneville, Oregon, in a ship that looks mighty like a Frizbee and be home in time for dinner? I don't think so.

Sasquatches aren't that far away.
 
varwoche said:
Thank you for the links LAL. I intend to read them however it may be a few days before I get back.

Too bad though that you persist in this self-centered inanity...
I made it quite clear that "random bozo" is a term I rhetorically applied to all posters here, myself included.

On the other hand and in fact, you impress me as being on the dim end of the random bozo spectrum.

And you strike me as condescending and somewhat rude. Hopefully these first impressions will be altered soon and we can carry on a reasonable debate. If not, I do believe I'm smart enough to figure out how to work the filter on this board.

Can you tell the difference between the rhetoric I applied to both of us, versus this clear insult?

I see no reason to regard anyone as a "bozo", unless it happens to be the original clown.

Puget Sound, huh? I used to live in Edmonds. My brother's in Seattle. He got his PhD at UW.
 
There's a shot of the Winnipeg Sun story on the TV interview with Meldrum I posted, but it's hard to read. Here's what it said:

Footage shot in Manitoba shows Bigfoot, viewers say
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 and a second article from the Winnipeg Sun dated Thursday April 21

Massive, hairy figure seen walking along shore of Nelson River the 'real deal' By Dawn Walton

Hundreds of people have now streamed through a home in northern Manitoba to view a 2-minute 49-second video that has folks believing: Bigfoot lives.
Missy Flett, a self-described cynic, said she was stunned by the image of a massive hair-covered creature walking upright calf-deep in water along a shore of the Nelson River, about 500 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

"I was kind of skeptical when I went over," Ms. Flett, an outreach worker with the Norway House Community Council, explained yesterday after viewing the video. "But after seeing it, I truly believe it's the real sasquatch [another name for Bigfoot]."

She asked whether she could take a picture of the images on the flat-screen television with her digital camera, but the family screening the video in this remote community of 6,000 nixed her request.

They are talking about copyrights and thinking about turning the Bigfoot video into big bucks if some media outlet were just willing to pay.

And now, the man who shot the video is apparently "too stressed" to deal with the press.

The man behind the camcorder is Bobby Clarke. He's a ferry operator responsible for bringing people and vehicles over the Nelson River at docks located about 40 kilometres north of his home in Norway House.

While at work 6:30 Saturday morning, he noticed a black figure walking along the opposite river's edge about 250 metres away.

He grabbed his camera -- something he is rarely without -- and started shooting.

What he captured, according to his sister, Sharness Henry, is the image of a massive creature that stands eight, nine, maybe 10 feet (three metres) tall, walking along the edge of the water through some bulrushes. Near the end of the video, the creature turns and appears to stare into the camera, but the details of its face are impossible to make out.

"He's really hairy," Ms. Henry said.

That's when her brother appears to drop the camera. The experience has left him shaken and off work for a few days, Ms. Henry said.

Hubert Folster knows the feeling.

He was a ferry operator at the Nelson River crossing about a year ago when he spotted something dark, human-like, but too huge to be human, wandering on the bulrushes locked in the ice along the riverbank.

"It just wasn't right," he recalled yesterday.

For six minutes he watched, but in the poor early morning light, from his distance and without a camera, Mr. Folster can't be sure what he saw and he has never really talked about it.

"You don't want to mention these things," he says now, laughing.

North Americans have reported Bigfoot sightings as far back as the 1830s, but interest in the phenomenon really picked up with sightings, photos and footprints during the second half of the 20th century, according to Skeptical Inquirer magazine, a publication dedicated to unexplained occurrences.

The most famous is the 16-mm Patterson film shot in Bluff Creek, Calif., in 1967, which shows a hairy, human-like creature walking across a clearing.

Many Bigfoot hunters maintain the film is not a hoax, but anthropologists have argued that the size and stride of the creature suggest it could be human.

The shooter, Roger Patterson, has stood behind the film as authentic. Interestingly, a known Bigfoot-track hoaxer has said he told Mr. Patterson where to look for Bigfoot and, subsequently, Mr. Patterson raked in quite a bit of money from the film.

As the Skeptical Inquirer pointed out in a recent roundup of Bigfoot-related evidence, until bones or a body is discovered, there's no real scientific evidence of what Bigfoot enthusiasts purport to study.

Ms. Flett said there's no mistaking the image in the video for a bear or some other kind of wildlife common to the area. Bears have been known to walk on their hind legs, but for short distances. This creature, she said, is walking "gracefully" kind of like a human, but not.

"It's awesome," Ms. Flett said. ". . . It's real. It's the real deal."
---------------
Second article: From the Winniped Sun

The Winnipeg Sun - Thu, April 21, 2005
Sasquatch seen? Norway House video 'shaky' By Paul Turenne, Staff Reporter

While people in Norway House have been flocking to see a video shot by a local man last weekend that may show a sasquatch walking in the Nelson River, the million-dollar question remains unanswered: Are there Bigfoots in Manitoba? Bill Borody, whose home near Anola is known as the Manitoba Sasquatch Research Centre, said he's heard of more than 300 sasquatch sightings in Manitoba in the past 30 years.

Borody said he doesn't want to pass judgment on the Norway House video because he hasn't seen it, but added he understands it was shot from about 1,000 feet away -- which he thinks is too far to identify anything positively.

CBC-TV videojournalist Mychaylo Prystupa saw the tape on Tuesday and doesn't believe it proves anything.

"What I saw was a dark, shadowy figure in the distance," said Prystupa, who was shown at least 30 seconds of the clip. "It appears to be humanoid and it's tall, but the video itself is very shaky ... I think if the video could be slowed down and enhanced, then it could be interesting."

'Shape-shifters'

Regardless of whether this viewing is legitimate, Borody is sure sasquatches roam Manitoba.

"There's no doubt in my mind these things exist," he said.

Borody said one reason proof continues to elude science is native lore claims they are shape-shifters, capable of changing into almost any animal.

"I think this thing goes well beyond our logic," he said.

Bill Watkins, a zoologist with Manitoba's biodiversity conservation unit, can't imagine what the creature might be.

"Other than a black bear standing on it hind legs, there's nothing (in Manitoba) someone experienced in the woods could mistake for a sasquatch," he said. "There's always the possibility it's a deliberate fabrication, but I wouldn't suggest that until I saw the film."

Watkins said he hopes the tape will be provided to his department for analysis, but is skeptical sasquatches exist.

If they did, he said, there would need to be a large enough population to reproduce without inbreeding. If a population that size existed, someone would likely have found a dead or roadkilled sasquatch or even some bones by now, said Watkins.
- ---
Third Article, same subject CBC Manitoba:
'Bigfoot' tape thrills northern community
Last Updated Apr 21 2005 08:02 AM CDT
CBC News
NORWAY HOUSE, MAN. – Hundreds of residents of Norway House Cree Nation in Manitoba are convinced the Bigfoot legend is real after a local man captured a strange creature on videotape.

Ferry operator Bobby Clarke was taking a vehicle barge across the Nelson River at the northern end of Lake Winnipeg Saturday morning when he noticed something on the shore.

He grabbed his camcorder and shot a 49-second clip of a tall, dark humanoid-like figure moving on the riverbank.

"It's not a bear or human walking around," said Clarke's father-in-law, John Henry. "You can tell by the features."

People who have seen the video say the figure is three metres tall and resembles past descriptions of the legendary shy, hairy giant long rumoured to inhabit remote woodlands in western parts of North America.

"Couple of my friends and cousins have seen it, and some of them, first didn't believe in anything like that," said Joey Robertson. "When they seen the video, it convinced them."

But local residents flocking to Clarke's house to see the video are now coming away disappointed. The Clarke family has stopped showing the videotape, saying they're arranging for an expert to enhance the video as they hold out for the best cash offer from a media agency.

Offers have already come in from places ranging from Florida to Toronto, they say.

Michelle Baril, a Sasquatch researcher based near Fisher Branch, hasn't seen the tape, but she's confident the sighting really happened. Barrow says she has investigated many other sightings, and has found that most people don't make these claims lightly.

"I find that these people aren't looking for fame or fortune. They're just looking to unload this. You look at this person, and you see the sincerity in their eyes and in some cases, they're almost embarrassed to tell you," she says.

"I have a general idea of who's telling the truth and who's not. For the most part, if anybody's going to open themselves up to being heckled and ridiculed, I really don't think they're going to come up with some kind of tale."

Linda Queskekavow, one of Clarke's neighbours, says there's nothing to be worried about even if it turns out that Norway House is home to the legendary Bigfoot, also known by its Canadian name Sasquatch (meaning "wild man" or "hairy man" in the Salish language).

"That Sasquatch is not harmful," said Queskekavow, who saw the videotape. "I think it's scared of people."
 
LAL said:


There's no reason a team with proper equipment, expertise and a ton of good luck couldn't get clear pictures.

Except the lack of a subject. What does luck have to do with it, a ton of it notwithstanding. It doesn't seem that luck is necessary for thousands of footprints and other inconclusive evidence.

If the Yerkes Primate Center, or the Smithsonian, or any accredited university had sent a team to Bluff Creek in 1967, it could have been settled decades ago.

But they did not feel compelled to do so.
Can you imagine the prestige associated with bringing this elusive creature into the light of day?
There is a clue here.

I really wish people wouldn't keep throwing this in with UFO's and paranormal nonsense and the ever-popular Loch Ness monster.


I wish some people would consider the possibility that there is a valid reason for doing this.


Sasquatches aren't that far away.
Indeed!?
 
LAL said:
Thanks for the link to the thread. I'm glad to know she probably hasn't lost her marbles.


I really don't understand your translation, however. Her grants are for Chimpanzee studies. If someone would kindly give her a grant for Sasquatch studies, she might be inclined to accept.

Do you really think Jane Goodall is not free to work on whatever she wants, grants or not?

Translation: She is really not that interested in Bigfoot. ( ... and the prestige that would accompany bringing this creature into the light of day )


(... patiently waiting your reply with something about Jane Goodall's disdain for prestige... )
 
Diogenes said:

Yeah. They're on earth. If tracks that have a midtarsal bend, articulating toes and dermal ridges are found in a remote area, followed and hoaxers discovered at the end of the trackway, that would show something, wouldn't it? Camera traps might answer the question,"How'd they do that?".

Or, they might get that really clear image.

Inconclusive evidence by whose standards? "Could have been faked" isn't evidence of anything, unless it can be shown something actually was faked. How would one go about faking an enormous pile of scat, for example (no horses allowed in the area)? How about hair?

Think about it. How does an unidentified primate have anything to do with lights in the sky, lights in the head, weird shapes on a lake or ghosts?
 
Diogenes said:
Do you really think Jane Goodall is not free to work on whatever she wants, grants or not?

We've been over this before.
Translation: She is really not that interested in Bigfoot. ( ... and the prestige that would accompany bringing this creature into the light of day )


She's only been following this for thirty years. She was photographed with Dr. John Bindernagle at a conference. She stated her position on national radio, and you think she's not interested.


(... patiently waiting your reply with something about Jane Goodall's disdain for prestige... )

Why should I comment on something I can't show one way or the other? I have no idea whether she has a distain for prestige or not.

Why are you focusing on Goodall? What's wrong with Sarmiento, for a change? Or don't you know who he is?
 
LAL said:
We've been over this before.

Why are you focusing on Goodall?


Because you keep dropping her name...


What's wrong with Sarmiento, for a change? Or don't you know who he is?
... And you knowing, and me not knowing who he his, contributes exactly what to the veracity of Bigfoot stories?


Do you have something from Sarmiento that is more conclusive than:
"I think a serious scientific inquiry is definitely warranted."

Again, we have one of your reputable Scientists, talking about how important this is; just not important enough to spend their own time on it.
 
I found this summation interesting.

http://www.skygaze.com/content/strange/Bigfoot.shtml

I find it odd that Bigfoot was unable to break down the door of the cabin during the battle. Bigfoot can apparently throw large rocks, and full 55 gallon drums, and break trees off. Yet he couldn't break down a cabin door?

Did they ever figure out whether the P/G film was shot at 16 or 24 fps? This could be a way to make a hoax look better.

I find it interesting that it appears that Freeman has faked dermal ridges in bigfoot tracks.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I found this summation interesting.

http://www.skygaze.com/content/strange/Bigfoot.shtml

I find it odd that Bigfoot was unable to break down the door of the cabin during the battle. Bigfoot can apparently throw large rocks, and full 55 gallon drums, and break trees off.
Yet he couldn't break down a cabin door?

Did they ever figure out whether the P/G film was shot at 16 or 24 fps? This could be a way to make a hoax look better.

I find it interesting that it appears that Freeman has faked dermal ridges in bigfoot tracks.

erikbeckjord was right! The Bigfoots are related to the aliens from Signs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom