Bobby Clarke Bigfoot Video - Don't Believe the Hype!? - Comments Page 6

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 226 - gridbug

  May 06, 2005 at 6:03 pm

  Directly from the Current Affair website, as if we need any more evidence of their bottom-of-the-barrel "professionalism"...
  
  "If you submit a show idea and/or show topic ("Show Ideas") to A Current Affair, you are granting Twentieth Television Inc. (Twentieth Television) a world-wide, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt and publish your submitted Show Ideas in and in connection with A Current Affair. You are also granting Twentieth Television a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display your Show Ideas (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed. You will not be paid for submitting Show Ideas or for granting Twentieth Television any of these rights. Twentieth Television is in no way obligated to use your Show Ideas, and you will not be given an on-screen credit if any of your Show Ideas are used. In addition, we can not make any guarantee that we will respond to your submissions."
  
  In other words, thanks for the money, chump. :/
  
  BTW, any idea who the blonde with the chainsaw is? Does she have anything even remotely to do with the Bigfoot phenomena at all? I watched the clip via the ACA website but I couldn't get the sound to work and feel like I only got "half" the story. Thanx!

• 227 - Sascrotch

  May 06, 2005 at 6:45 pm

  This is terrible.
  
  First I get my hopes up that the footage was going to be "Patterson II".
  
  It's totally hyped up on the internet.
  
  Then the negativity comes around.
  
  Then the footage totally sucks. And on "A Current Affair" to boot. Terrible job.
  
  Now, the show is going to extend the silliness of it to the next level.
  
  For anyone who wants the Sasquatch to exist for whatever reason, this is a step backwards.
  
  I guess after all of this, I have changed my mind - not that the Sasquatch doesn't exist - but that one is going to have to be killed to prove it. I used to think killing one would be the wrong thing to do.

• 228 - Sharness Henry

  May 06, 2005 at 7:08 pm

  Nothing going on right now, its pretty quiet. I'll post some news if i could later!

• 229 - Bobby Clark

  May 06, 2005 at 7:44 pm

  SUCKERS!!!!!

• 230 - Gdub

  May 06, 2005 at 8:18 pm

  I would believe Bobby Clarke could at least spell his name correctly, so a true sucker is one to believe that Clarke posted "suckers!!"
  
  And this is for JemezDave: There are Canadian indians that can range from 7 to 9 feet. If you don't think this is true, I should post links to pics that I will take over the following week of Thompson locals, WITH myself/objects in the picture as size scale. Just for you. Buddy.
  
  Secondly, I am not in law school. Get your facts straight. I don't advocate those notes that I've posted, at the same time, I'm not throwing them out, just because you deem Canadian folk as people whom cannot reach a height of 8 feet or higher.
  
  I'm not saying "this is right. believe this." If anything, it's YOU who's implying what's right and what's not. Believers, or non-believers both have interesting viewpoints, which I take into consideration, rather than judgment on the speakers behalf.

• 231 - Bobby Clarke

  May 06, 2005 at 8:36 pm

  SUCKERS!!!!!
  
  p.s. Thanks Gdub

• 232 - gridbug

  May 06, 2005 at 10:36 pm

  Gee whiz, Gdub! I bet we'd ALL love to see some pics of 7 to 9 foot tall Canadian Indians... wait, wouldn't they be Native Canadians? Seriously though, that'd be a cool, interesting aside unto itself. How soon can you post some pics?

• 233 - The Unsilent Majority

  May 07, 2005 at 2:11 am

  LOL

• 234 - Inhalien

  May 07, 2005 at 2:23 am

  I feel sick to my stomach when I see the racist comments. These beings have been reported by First Nations peoples WELL before us Anglo Saxons joined in and spread out. Lets face it...there is something to be learned here. That is, the elders have spoken, these beings exist. So drop the fancy gadgets, grab a full water bottle and go hiking in the wilderness. Just think.....you may but into something....

• 235 - Inhalien

  May 07, 2005 at 2:25 am

  ...that would be ==BUMP== into something...
  
  Thanks

• 236 - The Unsilent Majority

  May 07, 2005 at 2:43 am

  TD (still Too Dumb)
  
  [Comment 171 posted by td on May 5, 2005 08:56 AM: "Here's your baby pigeon. Took me a whole of 15 seconds to find."]
  
  Hey TD. Here's your Sasquatch. Took me a whole of 15 seconds to find also... http://www.rense.com/1phts/4th.jpg
  
  By the way TD......do u happen to have some pigeon's nesting on a shelf in your own living room?
  
  LOL you brainless grasping upstart

• 237 - jemezdave

  May 07, 2005 at 12:34 pm

  Wow now there's a story for A Current Affair: "The Village of Nine Foot Tall Canadians"! Of course they'd have to visit the local strip club while they were at it.
  
  Can't wait to see the pictures. Actually I can't wait to see these 9 foot tall Canadians in the NHL should they ever get the league going again.

• 238 - gridbug

  May 07, 2005 at 12:45 pm

  I know I'm not the "voice of authority" here, but can I make a request? How about we leave the unnecessary insults about ethnicity and culture out of the discussion. The native people have been around a lot longer than the white folks, and their stories and legends should be at least treated with respect, even if you decide not to buy into them. Making fun of Bobby Clarke, the Cree Nation, the teachings of their elders etc isn't going to further any sort of progressive debate/discussion here. All it's going to do is hurt feelings, make other people angry and wind up alienating both the individuals making the nasty comments as well as those who are offended and may otherwise have valuable insight into this subject.
  
  Hope I didn't come off as overly-righteous, because I'm far from perfect myself. I just think that if we all respect each other, no matter who believes what, and apply a little maturity to this forum, we could all stand to learn some pretty cool new stuff.
  
  Thanks for listening! :)

• 239 - gridbug

  May 07, 2005 at 1:09 pm

  BTW, there's a new update on the BFRO site about last night's ACA "expedition" report:
  
  ------
  
  Friday May 7, 2005 -- Quoting another web site: "Ruehl, the crackpot in the Frank Buck hat, portrays himself as bizarre, eccentric moron whacking the air with a stick yelling 'may the cosmos be with you.' [He] promises the Manitoba Village of Norway House will show him a clump of sasquatch hair. ...Then, as the nutcase continues his stick whacking at imaginary things in the air, we are told to 'stay tuned' ..."
  
  If you are a First Nations person in the U.S., and you saw this broadcast, and you happen to have friends on the Norway House Cree Reserve in Manitoba, do call them and tell them what Current Affair is actually saying and showing about them.
  
  These Current Affair people are taking advantage of the fact that the Cree cannot receive the American broadcast. The tribe may be told or shown something different than what is actually being broadcast in America.
  
  If there is a video crew on the Reserve gathering landscape footage for these sham updates then the Cree are within their rights to confiscate their vehicles and equipment and make them leave the reserve immediately.
  
  Bobby Clark and the Cree tribal council are hoping to do something beneficial for the tribe with this video. They hope to license it to other television production companies, or sell DVDs with the full footage and comparitive images included. That potential is being taken away by Brett Hudson, among others, as he makes a mockery of the footage, the Wetigo, and the Cree, every day on American television. The Cree Nation would be very offended if they saw what was happening.
  
  Please call or email the Norway House Cree Nation and describe to them what they are not able to see for themselves on television.
  
  ------
  
  I think there's a valid point in the urgent need for the residents of Norway House to try and do whatever they can to halt and/or reverse the damage that ACA's exposure will bring them. ACA is mocking this (and milking it) for all they can and I for one would love to see them get their collective hats handed to them. To exploit a people for the sake of ratings is nothing new, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.
  
  Hopefully the Cree Nation will recognize ACA's true motives and will do whatever they can to thwart ACA's attempts at making maximum profit at the the expense of a honorable people.
  
  Okay, no more soapbox speeches for me. It's just that I for once really want to see the "little guy" come out on top. :)
  
  

• 240 - Gdub

  May 07, 2005 at 3:34 pm

  I just think that if we all respect each other, no matter who believes what, and apply a little maturity to this forum, we could all stand to learn some pretty cool new stuff.
  
  Excellent wording, Gridbug. We need to stop being so rash with each other in this board, everybody! As for the whole 7 to 9 foot aboriginal canadians, it's not like they don't exist, I didn't say they're ALL over the place and ALL 9 feet. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Okie?
  
  I'm heading out to Winnipeg with some friends today, hopefully we can get a chance to stop in Norway House, if there's time. Bringin' my Samsung, and a friends diggiecam! See ya next week guys!

• 241 - Doug H

  May 07, 2005 at 5:01 pm

  Gridbug wrote:
  "I now am of the opinion that Bobby Clarke made a GIGANTIC misstep in collaborating with A Current Affair on this"
  I guess that all depends on whether the cheque clears.

• 242 - Jordy

  May 07, 2005 at 5:27 pm

  Hey guys The saquatch isnt real, Heres Proof: No Dead Body of a sasquatch has been found and they have been supposedly around for decades(people have been searching for decades!!

• 243 - Kimosabe

  May 07, 2005 at 6:41 pm

  "If there is a video crew on the Reserve gathering landscape footage for these sham updates then the Cree are within their rights to confiscate their vehicles and equipment and make them leave the reserve immediately."
  You must be kidding! This will not happen. You are opperating under the erroneous and condescending assumption that the natives involved in this scam are simple country bumpkins that are being cruelly exploited. It is blatantly obvious they are using "A Current Affair" for personal reward and free publicity as much as ACA is using them. Both sides are going to milk this to the full extent the gullibility of the North American public will allow. Regretfully, a limitless standard as many posts here attest.
  

• 244 - Sharness Henry

  May 07, 2005 at 9:44 pm

  Hey Gridbug, thanx for the lil speech there, and oh, thats not my brother saying "SUCKERS" ihave no idea who that is......

• 245 - Sharness Henry

  May 07, 2005 at 9:44 pm

  Hey Gridbug, thanx for the lil speech there, and oh, thats not my brother saying "SUCKERS" ihave no idea who that is......

• 246 - gridbug

  May 07, 2005 at 11:20 pm

  Aw shucks, no need to thank me. I'm just happy no one thought I was overstepping my boundaries and I'm glad I didn't come across as "scolding" or trying to be all self-righteous. I just felt it important to reiterate the common goal that we all have here: the believers who don't need the proof would be glad to have it, which is all that the skeptics demand. Once that proof is found, it's a win-win situation, right? At some point some damn fool is going to stumble upon something (deliberately or not) that'll blow this thing wide open. Will it be Dr. Franklin Ruehl and his Manitoba Expedition? I sure hope not. Then again, the thought of his crazy ass running smack-dab into the genuine article is pretty amusing. :D
  
  Sharness, please continue to let us know what the ACA crew is doing up there. I'm sure as long as Dr. Ruehl is still whacking weeds with his stick, there'll be plenty of entertainment for you guys.
  
  "May the cosmos be with you!"

• 247 - cc

  May 07, 2005 at 11:58 pm

  Who is Moneymaker to say who the experts are regarding Bigfoot? The fact is there are no experts because we have yet to locate and study this species if it even exists. I would personally much rather see the current affair team track bigfoot than some overweight middle aged geek with no personality. They have as good a chance as anyone. And instead of wasting his energy on smearing A Current Affair why doesn't he take some initiative and go there himself. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

• 248 - gridbug

  May 08, 2005 at 12:04 am

  Kimosabe makes an interesting point, but I'm not sure I can buy into the Cree Nation/Current Affair co-conspirator angle geared toward taking the gag as far as they can. I'm not saying that isn't possible, in much the same way that ANYTHING'S possible on a public forum like this, e.g. we have no solid proof that the "Sharness Henry" that's posting in here is actually THE Sharness Henry. We take in on good faith that she is who she says she is. Sheeit, for all you guys know, I might even be a Current Affair staff member in here to win your trust and then wreak all kinds of nasty havoc. But I'm not. So I guess we're back to reading, watching, listening, discussing and debating.
  
  By the way, I wouldn't work for ACA no matter what they'd pay, and that's official. :)

• 249 - gridbug

  May 08, 2005 at 12:11 am

  re: cc's comment...
  
  Damn, that's a good point too. In fact, I was wondering why Matt Moneymaker isn't in here himself, since this is the only blog that he decided to list on the BFRO site. It's all too easy to be an "armchair expert" as opposed to getting out there in the field and seeing what's what from a first person perspective. It's most likely a money situation, as in ain't no one getting paid to traipse around in the woods for months on end hoping to snag some Bigfeets. Dunno what Matt Moneymaker's regular gig is (I think I heard he was a lawyer or something?) but I do respect his efforts in keeping the BFRO site one of the best Bigfoot/Sasquatch databases on the internet. Maybe he'll decide to get in on this discussion?
  
  Even though there's NO ONE more qualified to lead the Manitoba Expedition than Dr. Ruehl. *smirk*
  
  

• 250 - cc

  May 08, 2005 at 12:41 am

  Moneymaker critisizes the team ACA put together when he himself will take large groups of people into Bigfoot "hotspots" that are supposedly secret areas with multiple sightings he does not even reveal on his website.
  What are the only qualifications he requires of his special Bigfoot taskforce? Cash, check, or credit.

• 251 - Doug H

  May 08, 2005 at 6:23 am

  "What are the only qualifications [Moneymaker] requires of his special Bigfoot taskforce? Cash, check, or credit."
  
  And, apparently, he is aptly named to boot!
  
  " I just felt it important to reiterate the common goal that we all have here: the believers who don't need the proof would be glad to have it, which is all that the skeptics demand."
  
  A nice sentiment, but I have to confess I am puzzled by the concept of "believers who don't need the proof". It may be nice to believe in one or more of the countless imaginary creatures that every human culture has conjured up, be it mermaid, leprechaun, troll, fairy, angel, hobbit, ghost, goblin, alien, unicorn, centaur, phoenix, elve, orgre, santa claus, easter bunny or big hairy man-like creature in the woods. The problem, of course, is that these "beliefs", while touching and quaint, and occasionally helpful in getting small children to behave, are not something that adults (outside of custodial institutions)seriously espouse. The philosophical position that: "Even tho no specimen of mermaid, leprechaun, troll, fairy, angel, hobbit, ghost, goblin, alien, unicorn, centaur, phoenix, elve, orgre, santa claus, easter bunny or big hairy man-like creature in the woods has ever been proven to exist I happen to believe in one or more of them and I don't need proof!" is not one that I personally would relish defending, but feel free to take the challenge. Just spare me the "open your mind canard". If asked to compare someone who is willing to concede the existence of any of the above, given scientific proof, to someone who just "believes and doesn't need proof", I would have to say the former has the more open mind.

• 252 - gridbug

  May 08, 2005 at 12:13 pm

  Hi Doug... by "believers who don't need proof" I mean -in the case of Bigfoot- that the sum total circumstantial evidence that exists by way of sightings, footcasts and vocal recordings is enough for me to say "yeah, there probably is something out there" without having to "see the body". In the case of fairies, ogres, unicorns etc, that's a whole different thing. If there were continued reported encounters, footprints and vocal recordings of any of those creatures, then the same thing would apply. I'm sure from the skeptical POV it's easy to lump Bigfoot in with mermaids, leprechauns and Santa Claus, but that's not really being fair.
  
  BTW, didja ever realize that if you rearrange SANTA you get SATAN?!? ;p

• 253 - Doug H

  May 08, 2005 at 2:59 pm

  If your standard of proof is "the sum total circumstantial evidence that exists" then I'm guessing you also believe in alien encounters. The problem is, having arrived at your "belief", there is nothing that could happen that would change your mind. So it is now effectively closed to the possibility that the myriad sightings were either hoaxes or misinterpretations of other visual stimuli. What would it take to change your mind - we already know what it would take to change mine.

• 254 - jemezdave

  May 08, 2005 at 3:12 pm

  If any of my comments were taken by anyone as racially offensive I certainly do apologize.
  
  None of my friends from the Jemez Pueblo seem to be offended by the term American Indian so I merely transplanted Canadian in there in reference to the Cree.
  
  I can't imagine that anyone up North is as tall as this guy. My comments in reference to height were merely in question of the possible hoax theory that was being presented. There have still been no comparisons made of a human in the same area as the alleged Sasquatch. Why couldn't ACA just done that when they were getting their footage from the same vantage point?
  
  Matt Moneymaker is probably the best expert you could get as far as evaluating video as well as statements in regards to a BF sighting in my opinion.

• 255 - gridbug

  May 08, 2005 at 4:10 pm

  Hi Doug...
  
  "If your standard of proof is "the sum total circumstantial evidence that exists" then I'm guessing you also believe in alien encounters. The problem is, having arrived at your "belief", there is nothing that could happen that would change your mind. So it is now effectively closed to the possibility that the myriad sightings were either hoaxes or misinterpretations of other visual stimuli. What would it take to change your mind - we already know what it would take to change mine."
  
  If by standard of proof you mean the thing that will solidify my suspicions, then obviously something tangible that I can see/touch etc would be that ultimate standard. In the case of Bigfoot, there's a large enough amount of circumstantial evidence that -to me- points to a credible phenomena that needs to be supplemented by serious examination/investigation, which we'd hope would lead to the iron-clad evidence needed to lay the issue to rest. Certainly my mind isn't closed to the hoax/misidentification factors; my problem is with the hard-line skeptics who use those hoaxes and mis-id's as their sole reasoning for their argument. There have been plenty of reports over the past several decades that are inconclusive, not because they're all fakes and mistakes, but because they're NOT fakes and mistakes and therefore fall into the classification of "probable". If it's been determined as best as possible that there was no trickery involved and that it wasn't a bear or other such animal, then all you're left with is a big, hairy bipedal question mark, which is proof that SOMETHING is out there, something that we have yet to effectively tag and classify. It's that fact that keep me open minded and intrigued as to the possibilities. Can you clarify your position a little better as to why you're so 100% certain that every single bit of circumstantial evidence for the existance of Bigfoot is invalid?
  
  Maybe this'll help; what sort of questions would you ask someone who claimed to have a no-mistaking-it broad daylight encounter with a Bigfoot? Would you accept that person's statement as fact or would you just shake your head and try to convince them that it was only A) a bear or other such animal, or B) their imagination? If that person were an educated, rational member of society who was shaken by something they didn't expect to see and can't exactly explain, and are reluctant to explain out of fear of ridicule, how would you present your query?

• 256 - Doug H

  May 08, 2005 at 4:52 pm

  Can you clarify your position a little better as to why you're so 100% certain that every single bit of circumstantial evidence for the existance of Bigfoot is invalid?
  I already have. Once again, the problem is there is not one piece of generally accepted PHYSICAL evidence, which beggars belief given the number of so-called encounters and their wide geographic distribution.
  "If that person were an educated, rational member of society who was shaken by something they didn't expect to see and can't exactly explain, and are reluctant to explain out of fear of ridicule, how would you present your query?" This is analagous to UFO encounters, and in both cases prosaic explanations are usually found after rational investigation. This is not to say the person experiencing the phenomenon is an idiot - almost everybody, including me, has seen strange things they can't initially explain. Science calls this evidence "anecdotal" and while it may be compelling (particularly in medicine) experience has shown it can't be relied on to advance our knowledge.
  

• 257 - gridbug

  May 08, 2005 at 5:17 pm

  Help me out, Doug. Are you saying that it's your opinion that anyone and everyone who has ever, in the history of this phenomena, reported an encounter, no matter how lucid, professional and detailed, are all either mistaken or participating in a hoax?

• 258 - gridbug

  May 08, 2005 at 5:19 pm

  Addendum: by "this" I'm referring to a physical encounter with a Bigfoot, not some ambiguous lights in the sky.

• 259 - Bobby Clark

  May 08, 2005 at 5:52 pm

  Bigfoot,
  If you are checking out this blog i just want you to know that i think you are so freaking hot! Let's get some coke and a hooker and get some more footage! wink wink

• 260 - Sharness Henry

  May 08, 2005 at 7:16 pm

  Well, i guess the ACA team is up here somewhere up in the bush, and recently just found more footprints around the area. Apparently there are more than just one sasquatch hanging around here. I dont know, maybe they are just overreacting on the whole idea. AND more news, a family near Winnipeg (actual researchers) are coming up here to Norway House soon, to do a reanactment. We are going to get a tall indian guy to stand where the sasquatch was and walk! ok thats all i know for now bye :) I have no idea of they are going to air this........if it gets going soon

• 261 - Doug H

  May 08, 2005 at 7:18 pm

  gridbug wrote:
  "Help me out, Doug. Are you saying that it's your opinion that anyone and everyone who has ever, in the history of this phenomena, reported an encounter, no matter how lucid, professional and detailed, are all either mistaken or participating in a hoax?"
  Yes, most probably they are. I can't say for 100% certainty they didn't see an actual Sasquatch, but in the absence of any physical evidence the best you can say is "maybe it was, but more likely it wasn't". Again, these kinds of accounts do not, cannot and should not be accepted as evidence without physical corroboration.
  If you have a chance check out the Sasquatch articles in the last two issues of Skeptic Magazine. A fair and clear-eyed examination of the phenomenon IMHO. As Sasquatch researcher Dr. Krantz concludes: "The proof required in this case is an actual specimen, nothing less will suffice. At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field" 80 years of searching with nothing to show for it. How many more years are you willing to go on?

• 262 - cc

  May 08, 2005 at 7:31 pm

  When you hear hooves approaching look for horses and not unicorns.

• 263 - kimosabe

  May 08, 2005 at 7:44 pm

  "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."

• 264 - cc

  May 08, 2005 at 8:04 pm

  The 'Skoocum Cast' is used as an example of BF evidence. Pheremones and high quality acoustic equipment (to broadcast Bigfoot calls) was used to lure bigfoot to a particular area. In the morning there was an impression in the ground and some partially eaten apples. I just don't understand why anyone who really wanted proof of BF and seemed to go to great lengths to attain it would not spend $50 on a motion sensitive camera with a flash. This is just one more example of keeping the legend alive for fun and profit.

• 265 - Doug H

  May 08, 2005 at 8:07 pm

  I take it all back. Bigfoot has been found! Definitive proof here!

• 266 - bill green

  May 08, 2005 at 8:09 pm

  hi everyone good evening so has any other tv news shows other than a current affair asked bobby clarke for interviews yet. has the footage been mentioned in the newspapers etc this weekend. please keep me posted ok. bill green

• 267 - RTLowe

  May 09, 2005 at 10:01 am

  Quote: "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
  
  
  
  Like God for example?

• 268 - JP

  May 09, 2005 at 11:16 am

  "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."
  
  Whatever, beliefs change all the time. But I bet it would be hard to convince the person who said THAT.
  
  Anyway, a lot of skeptics seem to think believers NEED this to be real. Truth is, it's not going to change my world when the proof comes. It'll just be a species we weren't sure existed. I might not even get in line to see a live specimen.
  
  The important question in my mind is: What do you lose if you think it's real and it turns out it's not? On the other hand, if it's real and you choose to believe it's not you may contribute to endangering it.
  
  I think the safe side to err on is to say that it might be real. The burden of proof should not lie on the believers.

• 269 - td

  May 09, 2005 at 11:55 am

  The problem with the so-called circumstantial 'evidence' is that it only points to 'something' being there. It is then up to the individual to hyposethize what that something is. Maybe it's bigfoot, maybe it's a guy in an ape suit.
  
  You can't rule out either possibility without being provided with more than just sightings, vocal recordings, and footprints, because you can't rule out that they are not fakes, and you cannot rule out that they are not fakes.
  
  Sure you can say, well nobody has replicated the hoax, but this is not Proof that nobody can. The famous 'Piltdown Man' hoax in england fooled scientists for over 40 years before proven to be faked. And that was the top scientists in the world working on one sample. Therefore, it is certainly not improbable that a handful of scientists have not been able to disprove the few hundred BF samples deemed 'real evidence'.
  
  Again, this does not mean that BF does not exist. Only that the evidence is not proof of Bigfoot.
  
  
  
  Finally for "The Unsilent Majority",
  
  Type in 'Dissect Pigeon' into Google images.
  
  Then try it with 'Dissect Bigfoot'.
  
  What is your goal anyway? Are you saying that there is as much evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot as there is supporting the existence of Pigeons. Is that really your argument?
  
  

• 270 - Doug H

  May 09, 2005 at 2:00 pm

  JP wrote:
  "The important question in my mind is: What do you lose if you think it's real and it turns out it's not? On the other hand, if it's real and you choose to believe it's not you may contribute to endangering it."
  Actually the complete opposite is true. If there really is a bigfoot roaming around Norway House, who is putting it in more danger, the knukleheads from ACA trying to hunt it down or me sitting here laughing my ass off? Pascals Wager works neither for God nor for Bigfoot.

• 271 - Gdub

  May 09, 2005 at 3:02 pm

  Horrible weekend...
  J's F150 is now a write-off and have a broken foot to boot! Way to start my summer...
  
  That's great to hear that the ACA is finding evidence out there, hopefully it's not tampered. Great to hear about the re-enactment. I don't know how many times I've E-mailed ACA in request of one. But, please ACA, leave that HORRENDOUSLY exaggerant narration/commentary out this time.

• 272 - JRG

  May 09, 2005 at 3:55 pm

  Skeptics consider this; there are 100's of DIFFERENT track castings taken over most of the world not just in North America. There are many videos, many photographs, many sound recordings, unidentified hair samples, eye witness reports, native population legends, media reports etc. Some of this evidence, perhaps most of it, could have been hoaxed. Some of the "eye witnesses" are not credible. Some of the legends are just that...legend and myth. But, if just 1 track was not faked, then by definition (not faked) there exists a creature that "science" is not ready to accept. I believe there is enough credible evidence to seriously investigate this and to be able to do so without ridicule. I am open to the idea that bigfoot does not exist...I am also open to the idea that it does exist...I tend to lean toward the latter statement based on what I believe to be credible evidence but I am keeping an open mind. It seems the skeptics blogging here will not accept even a remote possibility of it's existence. I would be willing to wager that most if not all of the skeptics here have not studied or researched the phenomenon at all but merely have an opinion based on information from the likes of ACA. "Mainstream" science seems to want it to go away...the idea of an upright, undiscovered primate which may or may not be related to humans is a concept which scares many people...it may interfere with their comfortable idea of nature or god.
  
  Bottom line is this: Study ALL of the evidence. Not just the tabloid (ACA) reports. Don't just look at ONE picture of a cast, look at many. Read the reports...some are biased, some are not. Watch the videos including forensic examinations of them. Check out the web sites. Some are pretty funny, some are pretty serious. Keep an open mind. If you are not afraid.

• 273 - Doug H

  May 09, 2005 at 6:55 pm

  I don't know why I bother. I try and carry on a civilized debate about this and JRG comes along and repeats all the ridiculous stereotypes "believers" have about "skeptics":
  1/"It seems the skeptics blogging here will not accept even a remote possibility of it's existence."
  WRONG Go back and read my posts.
  2/" I would be willing to wager that most if not all of the skeptics here have not studied or researched the phenomenon at all but merely have an opinion based on information from the likes of ACA."
  WRONG. Go back and read my posts. I even provided references to a scientific review of the issue.
  3/ ""Mainstream" science seems to want it to go away...the idea of an upright, undiscovered primate which may or may not be related to humans is a concept which scares many people...it may interfere with their comfortable idea of nature or god."
  So there's a massive conspiracy to suppress all this evidence? Just like with the aliens. PLEEEEEEZE.
  Can you imagine the fame and fortune awaiting the first scientist to prove they exist?
  4/ "Keep an open mind. If you are not afraid." Actually I'm gonna quit studying this right now. I just realized ARRRRGH I'M AFRAID!
  
  You also make the common argument that the sheer VOLUME of sightings, videos, eye witness reports, native legends, etc. etc. should be regarded as positive evidence towards the existence of the creatures. "If just 1 track was not faked". Actually the exact opposite conclusion must be drawn. Each of these encounters carries a probability that conclusive physical evidence will alsobe found. (Blurry videos, footprints, and "unidentified hair samples" don't count. A body would be nice, but even a hair sample with proveably unique DNA from any known species would suffice.) As the encounters mount up (and time marches on) the unfortunate conclusion that the creature doesn't actually exist becomes more probable. Sorry. I am as bummed about this as you. As I said earlier in this thread, finding Bigfoot would be "neat". And I can also appreciate the sentiment of the poster who wrote:
  
  "Whenever I hear about some recent sighting, or in this case, new video footage, I become a kid again. I get SO excited.
  I should know better to believe that definitive evidence of bigfoot would ever be aired on a show like "A Current Affair.""
  Perhaps on that we can agree.

• 274 - JRG

  May 09, 2005 at 7:26 pm

  OK DougH, I apologize to you for including you in this statement:
  
  1/"It seems the skeptics blogging here will not accept even a remote possibility of it's existence."
  WRONG Go back and read my posts.
  I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
  
  2/" I would be willing to wager that most if not all of the skeptics here have not studied or researched the phenomenon at all but merely have an opinion based on information from the likes of ACA."
  WRONG. Go back and read my posts. I even provided references to a scientific review of the issue.
  
  Sorry, could not find your post with a "reference to a scientific review"
  unless you are referring to Skeptic magazine which purports to unravel the "Bigfoot Hoax" through it's article about Ray Wallace.
  
  "So there's a massive conspiracy to suppress all this evidence? Just like with the aliens"
  
  No, just an unwillingness to do more than "poo poo" the evidence because of the ridicule poured upon those presenting it.
  
  
  
  

• 275 - gridbug

  May 09, 2005 at 7:33 pm

  Nicely done, JRG! Believe me, I know how it feels to go around and around with the skeptics, right Doug? ;)