Kitakaze- I am glad you are on this site and posting your ideas, so as far as I’m concerned please don’t think too much of anyone saying “why are you here?”. Your input is appreciated from my end. I find it very interesting that we come from completely opposite ends of the spectrum as far as our interest in this field. As I understand it, you once were a supporter of the existence of Bigfoot and slowly came to be a skeptic. As for me, I started out a skeptic and a rather close minded one at that, and slowly came to where I am today being quite a bit more open minded based on my own research of what is out there. I am still a long way from saying that Bigfoot definately exists, but I am now more than willing to look at any sort of evidence, circumstantial as it may often be. I am willing to look at both evidence for and against Bigfoot and I am perfectly able to accept either as free as possible from any preconceived belief. I still play devil’s advocate with myself relentlessly. I just am seeking the truth, whatever that may be. Look forward to some interesting input from you in the future.

That’s all I have to say in closing on this thread. Everything else will be about the “old woman”. Promise!

Wolverine: hey, stuff happens. It’s appparently barely hanging on on VI because, well, wolverines need lots of room and VI is, well, an island. But it once ranged over it, east to west.

The only thing that can be done with sightings is to vet them for reasonability; note where there are concentrations of them; and follow those concentrations up to collect better evidence. If you could consider sightings proof I’d take MultipleEncounters’ word for it and be done. Boy, he sounds like it happened to him. But until the rest of us see the confirmation, we’re stuck where we are, wondering. I’d just like to see the field go somewhere, and so far hashing over 50-year-old evidence hasn’t cut it. That’s what makes sightings important, to me: that’s where they were JUST seen, not in 1967.

I wish I knew what to think about the BFRO in general. Things are looking a weetad sloppy over there right now. But I sure can’t just take it for granted that the reports up there are faked. Not all of them; not most; not even a significant minority, unless someone can show evidence I can accept. There are too many voices in those reports; they sound like the Great American Novel. They have a genuine ring to them. And I’m cautious about confusing the integrity of the people taking reports with those reporting them. That said: There ARE people of integrity over there; it’s that thing about one bad apple spoiling (or not?) the bunch.

The Manitoba report is like any other. By itself it could be anything. So I don’t know. But when people say, nobody’s shot one, well, maybe someone has. That’s as far as you can go; but it’s not definite that no one has. And why would this guy, if he did it, be the only one who has, and he just decided to say something when, decades later, he found out what it was?

I most definitely refute any claim to having coined any crypto term. But a new thread looks like it took care of that one for me. Sorry I missed it the first time you mentioned it; there seemed bigger fish to fry.

If you wish to talk about “scotific,” please go here: Is “Scoftic” A Useful Term?.

If you wish to get into personal issues, take it offline and go private.

Thank you.

Now, as for sightings as evidence, I long argued at the JREF that they should be considered but the simple fact is that without corroborating evidence they will never singularily or as a whole rise to the level of reliable evidence. It’s hard for many not to look at people like Dr. Matthew Johnson’s claimed encounter and not find it credible but one really needs to take careful heed of the circumstances surrounding such claims. What do you think of the current state of the BFRO’s database?

You stated as fact that a sasquatch has been fatally shot. I asked for reliable evidence of this. You then responded with the very old Manitoba anecdote. Can we agree that your assertion is not an established fact?

Sorry, one more thing- you still haven’t clarified whether or not you refute claim to being the originator of the terms ’scoftic’ and ’skepticals’.

You asked the same question twice. The first time:

““Bigfoot isn’t claimed to be encountered in desert areas?”

I answered:

“Um, yeah. (Saaaaay. You DIDN’T read that link, did you?) Along or near waterways, always.”

[Translation: YES there are desert sightings. Always near water, indicating that the animals use watercourses as travel routes to get from one well-watered area to another.]

Then you said: “Unfortunately, you’re wearing your experience on your sleeve by saying that bigfoot hasn’t been reported in desert areas. Three words- read the sightings.”

I agree, man. DO it. But SLOW DOWN. Then I won’t have to repeat myself.

At least I’m slowly making a convert. Man, they’re right. Missionary work is TOUGH.

“You’re not doing your homework as you think wolverines are on Van Isle.”

Really? OK, then I’ll let you talk to someone who is: Try this.

Which of course says nothing about the sasquatch. About which the evidence – take it from a true skeptic – says that its existence is still a VERY open question.

If a cougar ate one of those marmots, they’d know. If a wolf ate one, they’d know.

If the evidence pointed clearly to the sasquatch as the single greatest threat to the marmot: you can bet your last grant dollar that no one outside of those researchers would EVER find that out. “Um….er…..lotta cougars here, huh?…”

Biologists care about where their next dollar is coming from, and they sure aren’t going to jeopardize that, ya think?

You’ve given me what I consider the Urban Objections to the sasquatch: those that could be given by anyone whose total exposure is one screening of the P/G film at their book club – and no time outdoors at all.

If you could get beyond that, we could talk. I do have to say this, though: I don’t consider anyone who tosses sightings, out of hand, as evidence worth wasting time on. It’s indicative of, well, an Urban Objector.

I need someone who’s read up a bit. Someone interested in true skeptical discourse could have come up with at least ten leading questions – check that, forty – from what I’ve put up.

But a scofftic posts something like, well, you did.

“Come back when you have some info.” About? You are the one who seems woefully lacking in that department. Posting a lot and repeating yourself doesn’t strengthen your points in any way at all.