Nessie

[mythusmage]

(snippage)

…given the amount of hoaxed evidence and questionable data surrounding bigfoot…

Much agreement re hoaxes and frauds. They have damaged many an investigation. But I must encourage you to remember that the hoaxes do not invalidate what real evidence there is. After all, Piltdown Man did not invalidate evolution. Evidence should be evaluated on its own merits, not ignored because you saw something sort of similar that turned out to be false.

BTW, sometimes hair does get torn out by the roots. Among people hair can get caught in things, torn out during fights, etc. Since we have yet to find a completely peaceful primate, I'm going to think the worst of sasquatches and assume they have their knockdown drag out fights.

Where the subject of the Patterson film is concerned, if it is a fake I would like to know one thing; how was it done? Pulling off a fraud like that would be one heck of an accomplishment. If it is a costume, where did the hoaxsters get all the material? Who sewed it together? Who wore it? How have they kept it a secret for so long? Why has nobody come forth in all these years to tell the story of how the fraud was put together. Where is the evidence?

The "man in a costume" theory has another big problem, costumes don't move like that. That "costume" moves like skin. If it is a fraud a make-up job makes much more sense than a costume. And the questions I raised concerning a costume also apply to make-up.

What sasquatch research needs is a central clearing house for information on the animal. Information and evidence that has been vetted and verified by independent investigators. A footprint is found, it gets photographed and castings made. That evidence is then sent to people who know footprints for their evaluation. People who's first priority is doing honest testing.

Finally, just a little friendly advice.

I tend not to take internet arguments personally. I cannot, however, vouch for all of the other munchkins. I should warn you that some of them have rather sharp teeth. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

You're a munchkin? You sound more like a gillikin to me.

Fret not, I bite back. Besides which, I got on the job training in alt.usenet.kooks. If some of my respondents posted there they'd get eaten alive.<eg>

Remember, sharp teeth only do a person any good when they actually hit the target.

 

[K-W]

The case that it is all a bunch of hoaxes has alot more backing than the case that they exist, yet you will make the leap of faith that it exists, but not the leap of faith that all the evidence is a hoax. That doesnt seem to make much sense to me.

 

[mythusmage]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Do you know of any evidence pointing to the existence of the sasquatch that has been falsified, and that falsification verified?

In other words, do you have, or know where one can find, proof that the evidence was hoaxed? None of this testimony from an authority stuff, solid, physical proof.

Have hoaxes been pulled? Yes, unfortunately. Has every bit of evidence currently available been hoaxed? If you said yes, can you prove what you said?

Based on what I have seen, I find it a greater leap of faith to accept the idea that all the evidence gathered so far is fake.

I want the evidence tested. None of this "it looks fake to me" crap either. Tested. Put under the microscope and given an honest evaluation. No more, "I don't like what you've produced, therefor it must be fraudulent." Prove it is a fraud, or shut-up.

There is a big difference between saying, "It looks like a man in an ape suit" and proving that it is indeed a man in an ape suit. Anybody can do the first, it takes effort to do the second.

 

[davefoc]

I think it is often difficult for a skeptic to justify disabusing people of their strange ideas. Why is it important that somebody have a view of the universe consistent with scientific observation. Were people happier when the scientists won out and convinced the population that the sun and not the earth was at the center of the solar system?

Will the world be a better place if mythusmage understands that it is wildly unlikely that any such creature as bigfoot exists?

Maybe. I, like many of the people in this forum, have read about the various people obsessed with noah's ark, an unlikely myth if there ever was one. Some of these people have done exactly what mythusmage says that he would like to do. Devote large portions of their life in pursuit of a myth.

Maybe, if mythusmage went off into the woods for twenty years, he'd find something completely unexpected of great value to society that could not have been discovered except by someone pursuing a path less traveled. Or maybe he'd just waste big chunks of his life pursuing a ridiculous idea like the Noah's ark guy.

I realize mythusmage, the above must seem a little harsh, you have given us so many words about why you think that bigfoot exists. The problem with your evidence, is that it is exactly the kind of evidence that would be expected in a world filled with hoaxers and true believers. In other words, it is not possible to distinguish this evidence from total bu**◊◊◊◊.

Theoretically, all things are possible. But given the complete lack of fossil evidence and the complete lack of reliable physical evidence that couldn't have easily been faked, Bigfoot is one of the easier myths to write off. The fact that you think the Patterson film is proof of anything other than that guys can get into gorilla suits and run around in the forest should make you very seriously question your objectivity when it comes to this issue.

 

[Smalso]

Sorry, but those who are skeptical of such claims cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon the ones making the claim and, so far, there is a lack of compelling evidence that Bigfoot exists. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that many of those who try to prove its existance start by assuming that it exists, then trying to gather evidence to back that assumption. They then fall into the fallacy-of-proof-by-enumerating-favorable-instances trap. It just doesn't hold scientific water.

 

[richardm]

Hell, how often do people find dead bears out in the woods?

Perhaps not often. However, we do have many live bears in zoos. How many live Sasquatch do we have?

 

[chillzero]

Re: nessie is our friend...

Sorry to digress a moment, but I really have to take umbrage with this....

Being Scottish I must say that Nessie would never eat the tourists. In fact, the only paranormal thing I believe in is dear old Nessie, because let's face it...why else would anyone go to Loch Ness, and the region needs the tourists. ....

wtf???

Have you ever been there?
I didn't notice it on your itinerary for when you come to Europe....

some good reasons to visit Loch Ness

and another

and one more

it is a beautiful area (crawling with tourists most of the time) with wonderful people, amazing walks, stunning scenery, good food, deep cultural heritage....

so endeth the lesson from (not) the Scottish tourist board. We now return you to your regular programming....

 

[Khonshu]

Everybody keeps mentioning the Patterson film - you do know that one of the participants has come forward and admitted it was fake, right? I believe it was the guy in the suit.

 

[chillzero]

Things to look for when sasquatch hunting: Hair samples, stool samples, footprints and other body impressions, sleeping areas, feeding areas, disturbed foliage. A dead sasquatch or a live one willing to tolerate your hanging around would be a great help, but don't expect to find such when you start your research. When you've got your evidence, verify it. That sasquatch femur may actually be a grizzly humerus. If you happen to find live sasquatches, let them get used to your presence. It'll make them easier to study. Become part of their everyday environment. It worked for Fossey and Goodall, it should work for you. If you take nothing else into the woods with you, take a high quality film camera. And use it. Take pictures, lots of pictures. Photographs of a sasquatch band (if they are social creatures) over the course of a week or two has more weight than a single picture of a distant manlike figure. Very important, get close-ups. Costumes and make-up are hard to hide in a close-up. Footage of sasquatches fornicating, urinating, or defecating would be a great help. Don't forget to focus.

If you can, bring a high quality movie or video camera. There are 16mm movie cameras available of higher quality than what Patterson used. Even better would be a broadcast quality video camera, but make sure you're in shape to handle it. (Them suckers is heavy.)

Never forget that your ultimate goal is to produce a specimen. Live would be wonderful, but science can make do with a corpse. If worst comes to worst and there are no sasquatches to be found after years of research, at least you'll know more about the area than most everybody else, and should be able to get a PHD thesis out of it.

oh... I'm so annoyed - I saw a program years ago where a guy did just this - he went looking for Nessie, and the Yeti, and some other famous characters, and he camped out in mountains in the area with the highest number of yeti viewings... set traps, set up cameras, food... and so on, and hunted for droppings, footprints, any evidence that any primate other than himself was there....

I can't find any info online

He also weighed up things like how much food each animal would need, and how much of that type of food was available in the area, whether the food growth/population had been subject to any changes in recent times. That was a new take on the investigation to me, and was very interesting.

It was a really good program, and the final conclusion was that there was no evidence for any of them, if I remember correctly.

Anyone else see it, or have the faintest idea about it?

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

There is another explanation, the sherrif has probably heard so many skunk ape stories he no longer considers the animal anything out of the ordinary. It's become an everyday part of life. Remember back in the late 20th century when deer in the suburbs would make the national news? Now it doesn't even make the local papers.

Right. Deer in the suburbs. I find it unlikely that these creatures would venture from their natural habitat to wander around in a hostile environment lacking food or shelter. Where is the proof for this ridiculous claim?

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Skunk ape! Best. Name. Ever!

Well, even the garden variety woo has to draw the line somewhere, right?