Talk:Bigfoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject British Columbia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to British Columbia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	British Columbia Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in North America may be able to help!

Archives
September 2003 – December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 – February 2007

Contents 1 Bossburg Tracks 2 Etymology entry removed 3 Please put the great 47-item discussion back on this page 4 Picture 5 Photos 6 Bigfoot Trap in Oregon: is it indicated in this section? 7 big foot paper from a year ago 8 film 9 Is existence everything? 10 List of hoaxes 11 Opening sentence

[edit] Bossburg Tracks

I see that the Bossburg tracks--famous because one of the track-maker's feet seems to have suffered from some sort of clubbing deformity--are mentioned, but the discussion of the subject is limited to the usual "where and when the trail was found" info and then the well-known (at least in bf circles) quote about nobody being "sick" enough to have hoaxed it, etc. I have an article from Skeptic magazine, though, about how there were some suspicious aspects to its origin, the seemingly non-sensical path the tracks took, as well as the fact that someone had hoaxed a film of an injured, limping bigfoot either before or after the discovery (a significant distinction I need to recheck); in any case, the Bossburg incident is more complicated than presented in the Evidence article. For the longest time, I thought the whole thing represented very compelling evidence--if not the *most* compelling evidence--supporting Bigfoot's existence, but there actually *is* a cogent "hoax" counter-argument. Should this be summarized and included? Massofspikes 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For this article, I would suggest a brief mention of the tracks, perhaps a pic to go with it, but a more-detailed "pro-con" entry in the separate evidence page that texasandroid created. Personally, I don't think the tracks are enough to prove Bigfoot at all. Although I believe in the existence of the animal itself, I have to agree with scientists who expect a lot more...namely a body. Carajou 15:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm starting to get a bit confused. I was under the impression that, for the main article, we were going to say, in a short and introductory paragraph, basically, "Evidence exists, but is disputed, blah blah," and then provide a link to an "Evidence" page wherein we get into more detail; this is as it stands now. *My* point was that, on the "Evidence" page, where we get into those details, it doesn't present much regarding the Bossburg tracks save the usual "it would be difficult and weird to fake tracks like this" argument, with no counter-argument. I know they'll never take the place of a corpse, but the Bossburg tracks were pretty influential in that they were one of the key pieces of supposed evidence that turned Dr. Krantz into a believer. He was certainly their most vocal proponent. Anyway, the hoax argument is what I'm volunteering to provide since I have an article on hand that explains it. (If I had to break down, percentage-wise, the degree to which I believe it exists vs. the degree to which I don't, I'd say I'm stuck at something like 51%/49%; and, I, like you, know that the conundrum will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, regardless of *what* is found or filmed, until that something is a corpse. And even if such an animal *does* exist, I'm not so sure that'll ever happen. Then again, who says its existence *should* be verified? Would sasquatch benefit from being discovered, or would man, as is typically the case, cause it more pain than help? I, for one, would never want to see one behind bars at a zoo...) Massofspikes 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please please put in the skeptical response. It would make for a more balanced Evidence regarding Bigfoot article. Totnesmartin 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can do, though I still think Evidence regarding Bigfoot is a poor title for the page, no offense to anyone. 70.114.11.160 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Write in your material as well as you can; provide as much detail as you can. Carajou 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence regarding Bigfoot is the least awful title we could think of; we had to avoid POV issues and over-wordiness. Totnesmartin 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate title for articles supplementing Bigfoot would be the have "Bigfoot" first, then the additional, i.e. "Bigfoot: supportive evidence"; "Bigfoot: evidence against", etc. I would also think that since there is a large history and supportive evidence of the tracks alone, that it could qualify as a separate article in its own right. Carajou 17:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's not worry about the title. It'll keep. And I think the article itself does a good job of presenting both the evidence & "problems" with that evidence. What *I'll* do is add a sub-sub-heading, 3.8.3, and call it "Hoaxing of physical evidence" and use it to deal with the Bossburg tracks, with a "for example" as means of segueing into it. Yes, there *is* a sizable history behind the tracks, but there are moderately lengthy histories behind *many* of the supposedly "great" evidentiary finds. That Skookum body cast, for example, could reasonably warrant its own page (uh...it doesn't actually have one, right?), but perhaps we shouldn't overly complicate things with too, too many links...at least for now. Massofspikes 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a Skookum Cast page. It's just that the C is capitalised so Wikipedia doesn't find it when you write "cast". Totnesmartin 20:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll be a son-of-a-sasquatch: I see the Skookum cast DOES have its own page. (Good timing, Totnesmartin.) I'd argue that it doesn't need it, though, given that its description could just be fleshed out a little more on the evidence page...this and the fact that, on its *own* page, the only "skeptical" response is a single sentence w/o a citation. In any case, I had this idea: merge "Absence of fossil evidence" w/ "Inconclusive evidence." THEN there could be a 3.8.2 called "Hoaxing" or "Hoaxes," etc., because, save for that little mention of "hoaxing at worst" under "Inconclusive evidence" (a clause that could be removed), there's no mention at all of hoaxes as a "problem." It's under this hypothetical 3.8.2. that I could intro hoaxing with a sentence or two, then segue into the Bossburg tracks as an example of a possible hoax of what had long been considered a pretty good piece of evidence. Massofspikes 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There's an exact analogy on Loch Ness monster, actually. I created a section on Hoaxes, but left out the iconic "Surgeon's photograph" as it had already been treated elsewhere in the article. The similarly-iconic Bossburg tracks could have the same treatment. Totnesmartin 20:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, before I commit it to Wiki: Looking at my source material, it offers no claim as to *how* the cripple-tracks were made, just that the tale as usually told ends with the "so sick" quote by John Napier and goes no further. What this source gives, is the *rest* of the story--that of an individual by the name of Ivan Marx who, along with Rene Dahinden (who'd moved a trailer onto Marx's property so the two could search for tracks together), were the ones to come upon the tracks. Well, actually, it was Marx who found the tracks and relayed the discovery to Dahinden. Dahinden was a little suspicious at first, though, thinking it too good to be true that such remarkable prints were along his regular search route, but they couldn't resist what seemed to be the greatest and longest trail ever--featuring a seemingly validity-endorsing deformity, to boot--even if whatever made it appeared to wander about absurdly with no rhyme or reason other than to leave over 1,000 tracks in the snow. Dahinden eventually left, but Marx kept telling Dahinden about how he'd continued finding tracks, handprints, etc., and then, if that weren't enough, that he'd videotaped the crippled bigfoot, itself. It didn't take long for the video to be exposed as a hoax, though. So the evidence of the Bossburg tracks being fraudulent is, at its core, circumstantial. Granted, there IS the chance that the tracks were real and the faked video concocted as an afterthought, but the claim is that the whole thing is tainted given the fact that Marx not only found the tracks to begin with, but was later revealed to be a person not averse to deception and hoaxing. Also, this same article in Skeptic throws a *little* bit of doubt on Krantz's statement that the remains of bears that have died natural deaths are never found: a wildlife biologist, Dr. Bindernagel, tells the magazine that he's found two bear skulls himself, but that there's no way to know if they died of natural causes or by human action. From this, the article postulates that, since bears occasionally ARE killed by humans and their bones found, the same should have happened with bigfoot by now, as well. Hmmm...I don't know about that. A bigfoot, should it prove to be real, isn't the same thing as a bear. I've read about people coming upon a bigfoot, convincing themselves somehow that this bipedal thing off in the distance isn't a human, having the cool and quickness to raise a gun in time, and *seeming* to shoot it, only to have it then lope off as if unhurt. I'm not so sure that a single shot with your typical rifle could fell something as supposedly large as a bigfoot. If such a wound occured, it might kill it eventually, but, by then, the animal would have done what a great many animals do when they're hurt or dying: gone into hiding. I mention this because I'm not sure whether it's even an argument worth including. To me, it's a lot like the "why are the pictures always blurry?" "argument" put forth by skeptics who ask the knee-jerk question but don't give it a lot of thought. Massofspikes 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology entry removed

I'll let others be the judge as to the nature of this entry, apart from it's grammar and spelling:

In spring of 2005 scientist conducted a study which proved bigfoot to be an actual being, more or less human but actualy a desendant of the bible figure Cane, who killed his brother Able and was cursed to walk the earth for the rest of his days. Scientist came to this conclusion after 3 years of intensive DNA research on a clump of hair. They found that Bigfoot is actualy a cross between a human and an ape. they are not yet sure how this unuseual breeding came about. After confirming the existance of the creature they furthured their research and estimate there to be anywhere from 600 to 3,000 in the continental United States with even more in Canada. they are still conducting research and are studying the habits of a family of these cretures in northern Montana. see CIA report 486 document 17 artice 12

I'm trying to figure if it's a half-witted attempt at vandalism...? Carajou 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the way "scientist" is the plural of "scientist" there. Perhaps he was referring to this Scientist? Totnesmartin 19:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, CIA report number is entirely spurious. CIA Report No.CS - 311/04439-71 came out in 1971[1], so report number 486 must go way back. And he misspelt Cain and Abel. Totnesmartin 19:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please put the great 47-item discussion back on this page

And of course it's a messy discussion. Real human discussions tend to be. I guess that's both their strength and their weakness.

And yes, you can still get to it by going through "archives," but I'm not a great fan of this kind of drilling down and overly hierarchical web page design.

In my view, let the main article be cleaned up, streamlined, flowing, and well-footnoted. And let the discussion page be big, sprawling, and messy.

And let new comments go at the bottom. And let people sign their names. And let pages be short enough to fit onto smaller browsers, like it says in WP:SIZE. Totnesmartin 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And let me stop procrastinating and get on to writing that "Physical Evidence / Hoax" section mentioning the Bossburg tracks...I shall do it tomorrow, for sure. And while we're at it, let there be light!Massofspikes 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Make sure to cite it. It sounds kind of weird to me. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What about it sounds weird? Massofspikes 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So far, I get the impression that the Bossburg tracks are considered to be among the strongest evidence by serious scientists with an open mind towards Bigfoot, and we get a lot of "hoax" additions to the Bigfoot article that don't cite a WP:V source that calls whatever it is a hoax. So, if you want to move a well-regarded incident into a hoax section, make sure you cite someone who calls it a hoax in print (otherwise, pretty much everything about Bigfoot would be in a hoax section). Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I'm sure you've read above in my brief synopsis of the issue, the tracks were found by an individual under what you'd call either serendipitous or suspicious circumstances, depending on your beliefs. Not long after they were discovered, the very same person orchestrated what is considered by almost everyone in the bigfoot community to be a hoax: a video of a crippled bigfoot. Additionally, I've since discovered that somebody cited in the main Bigfoot article an online transcript of a magazine article that theorizes the means by which such a cast might have been made--in other words, a refutation of Krantz's claim about it being well-nigh impossible that the tracks be hoaxed--but only used the article ("Cripple-Foot Hobbled," I believe it was called) to glean the basics of the tracks' discovery. In other words, the find is not quite as "well regarded" as you think. Did you know about this Marx character and the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the Bossburg tracks prior to my brief summary? No, the Skeptic magazine issue I'm using as my primary source doesn't come out and say, specifically, "so, then, the Bossburg tracks are without a doubt a hoax. The End." It only mentions the discovery's many suspicious aspects and comes to the conclusion that this incident doesn't do a very good job in passing the "extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence" test. Just as with the Patterson Film, their validity will be forever argued. Nobody made a deathbed confession regarding the Bossburg tracks, if that's what you're looking for, and Krantz (one of your "serious scientists," I'm guessing) had been fooled before. He mentions in his very own book, Bigfoot Sasquatch: Evidence, his coming upon (or being told about) footprints seeming to ascend a steep and snowy hill with a stride between them that appeared impossible for a human wearing carvings to duplicate. Once again, he thought had a sure thing. That is, until a student athlete confessed to donning fake feet, putting them on *backwards*, and running *down* the hill. In any case, when it comes to the Bossburgs, something other than the idea that "these footprints Dr. Krantz trumpeted as being real are so unique and unprecedented that they seem to validate the claim of Bigfoot-as-actual-animal like nothing else" needs to be mentioned. Massofspikes 07:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to explain your reasons to all of us on the talk page. Just cite someone who calls it a hoax, and no problem. It's that simple. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt I had to explain my reasons because, to your understanding, the Bossburg tracks represent "well regarded" pieces of evidence among the "strongest" in existence. Apparently, you'd not heard the argument questioning their validity. As for your criterium, nobody can out-and-out call them hoaxes. There's no way to make that determination with 100% accuracy--everyone originally involved in the tracks' discovery and immediate analysis is dead. One source explains WHY it very likely *WAS* a hoax given the circumstances involved. Another explains HOW it could have been done. This isn't enough, though, to add to the evidence section as an example of how even the holiest and most revered of bigfoot "evidence" can turn out to be, if nothing else, highly questionable? Maybe the whole thing should be written about in the "inconclusive evidence" section instead...or, as someone suggested, given its own page. Massofspikes 01:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

None of that is really necessary. Nobody can call it real either. All people can do is cite discussions, researchers and points that have already been published. Our personal chains of reasoning don't really matter. We don't call things hoaxes or real in Wikipedia. We just cite published researchers who call them hoaxes or real. If published material points both ways, we cite them both; for example "so-and-so says it is a hoax for such-and-such reasons, while so-and-so's opponent says it is real for such-and-such reasons". Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 15:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Since the article is semiprotected, please add Image:Pie Grande.jpg --84.20.17.84 11:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Very cool picture. I will try adding it to the article and see how people like it. The photo that now starts the article is not in the common domain and it is not really a picture of Bigfoot, but almost certainly a human in a Bigfoot suit. While yours is a picture of Bigfoot, real or imaginary. Steve Dufour 12:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture is not mine, but adding it to the article is a good idea. --84.20.17.84 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there any other opinions? Steve Dufour 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I have photos on my photobucket.com account and I am personally not the photographer for who took these photos. I wish I had taken notes on the actual person and the precise location for where these photos were taken. I pulled these off the Internet and I simply enhanced them. I welcome those who click on these photos to make their own evauluation and judgement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b155/Summerblynk/002.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b155/Summerblynk/001.jpg

A guy in a gorilla suit. Carajou 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot Trap in Oregon: is it indicated in this section?

Maybe I missed it, but is there a reference to the Bigfoot Trap on this Bigfoot page? Its in Oregon, just about 3 miles from the southern border. Anybody familiar enough with this page to know if a link to the Bigfoot trap is included or not? Maybe someone who has edited this section, could add a reference to that trap page.

It's easy to find, just search "Bigfoot Trap". Its already got a spot on Wikipedia, but may not be fully cross-referenced.Mdvaden 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] big foot paper from a year ago

There is a study: Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch by Dave Coltman and Corey Davis in TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution Vol.21 No.2 February 2006. It concludes:

"There are several possible explanations for these results. First, as suggested from molecular analysis of hair from a suspected Yeti [1], the Sasquatch might be a highly elusive ungulate that exhibits surprising morphological convergence with primates. Alternately, the hair might have originated from a real bison and be unrelated to the Sasquatch. Parsimony would favor the second interpretation, in which case, the identity and taxonomy of this enigmatic and elusive creature remains a mystery."

It has one plausable origin of big foot; bipedal bisons that can just return back to all fours to escape detection. I don't know if that is interesting to anyone, though.

the papers citations are:

"References 1 Milinkovitch, M.C. et al. (2004) Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘yeti’ and primates. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 31, 1–3 2 Dung, V.V. et al. (1993) A new species of living bovid from Vietnam. Nature 363, 443–445 3 Jones, T. et al. (2005) The highland mangabey Lophocebus kipunji: a new species of African monkey. Science 308, 1161–1164 4 Shields, G.F. and Kocher, T.D. (1991) Phylogenetic relationships of North American ursids based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Evolution 45, 218–221 5 Altschul, S.F. et al. (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410" Mike 12:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] film

I think it would be worth it if someone put the Patterson- something film on this page, or a link Wikizilla ^{(Signme!)Talk} 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is existence everything?

I see that most of the article is concerned with the question: "Does Bigfoot really exist?" and the debate back and forth about this point. My feeling is that most people, in the USA anyway, don't take Bigfoot seriously at all and consider him a fun folklore figure. A modest proposal: What if the article took the point of view that Bigfoot is mainly a fictional figure and had only a small section at the end on evidence of his possible real existence? At the very least it would be a lot more pleasant to read. As it is you can feel the hostility between the two sides in almost every sentence. Thanks. Steve Dufour 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of hoaxes

I removed List of hoaxes from the "See also" section. I don't see what the point is to direct people to this list. If they think Bigfoot is a hoax, or at least not real, why do they need to read a list of other hoaxes? On the other hand, if after reading the whole article they still believe Bigfoot is real what good would reading the list do? By removing this link I was trying to make a small change to the spirit of contention in this article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Devil's advocate bit - if someone believed Bigfoot to be a hoax, and looked it up on that basis, might they not also be interested in other hoaxes? I don't believe Bigfoot (as a whole) is a hoax, but there is hoaxery in the mix. Totnesmartin 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence

It now reads: "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is an alleged apelike animal said to inhabit remote forests in North America, with many of the sightings occurring in the Pacific north-west of the United States and British Columbia, Canada." Can we take out the word "alleged"? It means the same thing as "said to", which is found 3 words later in the sentence. Or remove "said to"? Steve Dufour 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed "an alleged apelike animal" to what I think is Bigfoot's main claim to fame: "a figure in North American folklore." This is not intended to shut the door totally on the possibility that he is real however. Steve Dufour 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)