Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Yahoo Answers Top Contributor and Bigfoot Skeptic Wants a Fair Fight (Updated)

Yahoo Answers Top Contributor
Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods


Update: This post has been updated with Lord Bearclaw's comments below.

In August, we posted an article about an answer from the Yahoo Answers community debating the existence of Bigfoot. Yahoo Answers Top Contributor Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods racked up a ton "best answer" votes in this category so we decided to re-post his answers along with a rebuttal from President of the BFRO, Matt Moneymaker.

When Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods stumbled onto our article with his answers, he was a bit upset and wished we had warned him in advance before the ambush.

The next time you feel like posting something I have written on a site like this, I would like to know in advance so this can be an actual debate instead of an immature rant.

For Mr. Moneymaker's information, I am a 40 year old Licensed Nurse, with over twenty years experience in the woods and wilds. Anyone wishing to debate this matter intelligently can contact me via Lord_Bearclaw@yahoo.com.

Lord Brion Bearclaw

We're going to send Lord Brion Bearclaw an email along with this post and see if he will add anything else to the following debate from August 21, 2011:

Here's the question posted on Yahoo Answers:
Did we descend from the sasquatch?  its been disproved that we descend directly from apes as we still live along side them, and people often discount the possibility of the sasquatch. is it possible we descend from them, hence missing link, if they existed. this is all theory here with a lot of people, even though i do believe bigfoot existed and still COULD exist today even though science "disproves" it. so main question is, is it possible we descended from the sasquatch?

And here is skeptic Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods’ answer, along with Matt Moneymaker’s comments:

Skeptic: Bigfoot is not real. For any species of that size to actually exist requires shelter, food, and warmth.

A community of primates has to breed to continue their existence, and the numbers necessary for species viability preclude any single small community of Sasquatch. Such a species would need to breed in order to maintain population levels and to offset the death rate from age, sickness, accidental death, and even homicide.

MM: Correct, but if you believe that bigfoot researchers claim there is only one single small community of them, then you are engaging in your own fantasy, because no one makes that claim.

Skeptic: Such a large community would require massive amounts of food to sustain, and even if they were strictly vegetarian they would strain the resources of any given area within weeks and would be constantly on the move, foraging and gathering.

MM: This statement is copied from other ignorant skeptic claims, all of which all false. There are other large omnivores in North America too. None of them manage to strain the resources of a given area. They are all on the move, but most remain in the same 2 mile radius most of their lives.

Skeptic: Yet there is no forensic evidence of any kind of a nomadic primate tribe anywhere.

MM: On the contrary, there is loads of forensic evidence. Meldrum's lab is not full of annecdotal evidence.

Skeptic: Instead of finding one or two isolated “footprints” we would have come across whole trails of Sasquatch prints, and such trails would be stripped completely bare of any edibles, and would also contain piles of droppings and fur samples caught on the trees and bushes.

MM: It's extraordinary how ignorant most skeptics are. These statements exemplify that typically smug ignorance of most skeptics. Lines of tracks have found several times. Bushes and trees with berries or fruits are found systematically picked. Hair samples have been found and collected.

Skeptic: No such evidence has ever been found.

MM: Wrong. Those sorts of things have been found many times.

Skeptic: Supposed hair samples of “unknown origin” have been long held up as “evidence”, yet I cannot find one actual report from any scientific lab about such hair samples.

MM: That's right. You can't those reports, even though they do exist and have been mentioned in newspapers over the years. An analysis of a hair sample doesn't necessarily lead to a full blown "report" and notes about those analyses aren't necessarily published online. This skeptic makes loads of assumptions.

Skeptic: As for warmth, even a Sasquatch would find it difficult to stay warm in the Pacific Northwest during the rainy seasons. Even a core temperature drop of just three to four degrees can result in hypothermia and death.

MM: So by this same logic ... bear, deer, elk and humans could not have survived in North America without living in caves during the rainy seasons.

Skeptic: This would mean that any sizeable community would invariably seek shelter of some type during inclement weather, and any member of the community that died would have one of two things happen to their corpse: one, they would be left behind where they died, or two, if the community was carnivorous the corpse would simply be eaten. However, all stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian or omnivorous at best, and not aggressively carnivorous.

MM: These skeptical statements reveal a curious phenomena among skeptics. Some make authoritative-sounding statements that reveal a total lack of familiarity with the topic about which they pontificate. This one goes beyond that. It's totally deceptive. "All stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian" clearly demonstrates that this person is not familiar with any observations by witnesses, because many of them suggest a connection with deer and predation on deer.

Skeptic: The reason for this is because there are no attacks. A carnivorous community would doubtless find it much easier to raid a human dwelling and carry off the inhabitants for food, especially during winter.

MM: Again, the anonymous skeptic reveals an embarrassing lack of knowledge about North American ecology. There are mountain lions throughout the western mountains, yet attacks on humans are exceedingly rare, but by the logic of this ignorant skeptic, humans would be routinely killed by mountain lions, especially in Winter. The fact is ... those places where mountain lions reside have abundant natural food supplies. The same applies to bigfoots.

Skeptic: Such behavior would be on par with bear learning that it is easier to raid villages and garbage cans than to hunt for themselves. After all, it would be much easier to attack an isolated home than to run down deer through snow.

MM: That sure sounds logical, but it proves that this skeptic has no clue about wildlife populations, and especially predator populations, in North America.

Skeptic: The fact that there are absolutely no corpses found means only one thing: there are no such things as Sasquatch.

MM: Corpses don't remain corpses for very long, as any ecologist will tell you. A rare population would not leave behind many remains. There are no fossils of chimps or gorillas either.

Skeptic: We have already ruled out carnivorous disposal of deceased members, and such creatures would likely not “bury” their dead, as they could only dig with their hands and any such “grave” would be shallow at best.

MM: This "skeptic" is probably no more than 13 years old, judging by the laughable stupidity of his statements. To him it's a foregone conclusion that you need a shovel to dig a deep hole, and that shovels are the only tools that would allow someone to dig.

Skeptic: Such creatures would not be intelligent by any stretch of the imagination, at least not by human definitions, because even Cro-Magnon man made and used tools. Yet not one sample of a Stone Age tool has been found in the woods that isn’t an actual relic from the Stone Age, certainly nothing made in the last two hundred years that wasn’t easily identifiable as having Native American origins. No shovels, no hammers, no axes, no spears. So if they are not intelligent enough to use tools, then they are certainly not intelligent enough to completely conceal their existence or to dispose of their dead in such a manner as to preclude discovery of the corpse.

MM: These skeptical statements are so speculative and presumptive that they don't even deserve a response. Even well-read skeptics would find these statements absurd and amateurish.

Skeptic: With the numbers needed to maintain genetic viability of such a community, nutritional requirements, and the need for shelter as well as forensic evidence, it is flat-out impossible that we would not have found or captured a living Sasquatch by this time, especially with the sheer number of hikers, campers, hunters, ATV enthusiasts, forest rangers, Bigfoot “hunters”, people who live in homes deep in the woods, scientists, etc. etc. etc.

MM: Again, this skeptic is pretty clearly a child who is very unfamiliar with the topic, and unfamiliar with any of the related scientific disciplines, such as ecology and zoology.

Skeptic: There is only the flimsiest “evidence”, consisting mainly of easily faked photos and video footage, usually blurry and at a distance, and isolated “prints” again easily faked, that are never part of an actual trail. Any outdoorsman worth his salt would find it easy to track such a large creature, especially considering that in order to have survived all these millennia it would require a large community to maintain species viability.

MM: More ignorant spoutings by a frustrated child. The only thing it demonstrates is the lack of moderation on "Yahoo Answers". Anyone can post anonymously. That opens the door for amateurish claims such as those made by this pubescent poster.

Update: Lord Bearclaw responded in the comments section and we've moved his response here.

Interesting choice of a picture to post of me. That was taken at Pennsic War, an event held by the SCA and is simply me in armor prior to one of the large melee battles. For more information look up sca.org.

I will address each of Moneymaker's "statements of rebuttal" here and not include my initial statement as referenced above for brevity's sake.

MM: Correct, but if you believe that bigfoot researchers claim there is only one single small community of them, then you are engaging in your own fantasy, because no one makes that claim.

So you are inferring that most researchers believe there are multiple communities of Sasquatch with the numbers to maintain genetic viability? Again, where is the forensic evidence? If they are creatures of habit, there would be permanent dwellings with evidence going back thousands of years - after all, modern humanity has only been on this continent a relatively short time. If they are nomadic, then this would exponentially increase the number of encounters as well as the amount of forensic evidence left behind. 1 or 2 Sasquatch might move about relatively unobserved, but a genetically viable community of at least 50 - 100 individuals could not remain undiscovered for long. Comparison with species of gorilla in remote parts of Africa is not a valid comparison, as America is a nation of explorers, we hike, we hunt, we fish, we camp, we build, we crisscross this nation with roads, trails, etc.

MM: This statement is copied from other ignorant skeptic claims, all of which all false. There are other large omnivores in North America too. None of them manage to strain the resources of a given area. They are all on the move, but most remain in the same 2 mile radius most of their lives.

And none of these other large omnivores are maintaining large breeding communities, nor are they intelligent enough to do so. We can easily find forensic evidence of all these omnivores that is verifiable and proveable, and is part of the ecological record. The concept of Sasquatch is of a creature intelligent enough to somehow conceal its entire existence while residing in large communities, as inferred by Moneymaker above, but not strain the natural resources? Given the supposed size of the creatures they would need to eat a large amount of food daily just to satisfy metabolic needs. Multiply that by the numbers needed to maintain a breeding community and they would have to be constantly on the move to secure food. We have evidence of this from what we know archeologically about hunter/gatherers tribes. Any concept of Sasquatch as having agricultural technology is completely unsupported, so the hunter/gatherer society is the only valid option. And hunter/gatherers move and migrate, yet there is no forensic evidence of any sizeable population moving cross-country anywhere.

MM: On the contrary, there is loads of forensic evidence. Meldrum's lab is not full of annecdotal evidence.

You do understand the requirements of the scientific process, observation, research, experimentation, and documentation? Where is the independent third-party verification of any of this evidence from Meldrum that proves an origin from a heretofore zoologically undocumented species existing in numbers great enough to maintain genetic viability?

MM: It's extraordinary how ignorant most skeptics are. These statements exemplify that typically smug ignorance of most skeptics. Lines of tracks have found several times. Bushes and trees with berries or fruits are found systematically picked. Hair samples have been found and collected.

Lines of tracks, you say? I can follow a deer trail or bear spoor to their resting place and observe the animal at rest. If lines of tracks have been found, why hasn't anyone followed said trail back to their point of origin i.e. the creature making the trail? Once again, in the case of a large community with at least a semi-permanent camp, we would find radiating trails all leading back to the same originating point - hunter/gatherer groups invariably work in a "wheel" pattern, with the camp at the center.

MM: Wrong. Those sorts of things have been found many times.

Then again, I ask: where is the independent third-party verification from zoologists and anthropologists that conclusively proves an etiology from a previously unknown and zoologically undocumented species?

MM: That's right. You can't those reports, even though they do exist and have been mentioned in newspapers over the years. An analysis of a hair sample doesn't necessarily lead to a full blown "report" and notes about those analyses aren't necessarily published online. This skeptic makes loads of assumptions.

So there are no documentable reports outside of scientifically unverified newspaper articles? Reports and studies of new species appear in scientific journals at frequent intervals and are conclusively verified by zoologists and scientists. Yet there is no such documentation for any of these claims.

MM: So by this same logic ... bear, deer, elk and humans could not have survived in North America without living in caves during the rainy seasons.

Bear, deer, and elk are not primates. They have evolved specific ways of surviving in the climate, and humans adapted their environment to fit their needs by inventing clothing and making use of constructed shelter and the ability to make fire. The concept of a Sasquatch is again that of a primate, with the biological make-up of the species. A human attempting to survive a Pacific Northwest winter wearing nothing but a exterior fur coat will die.

MM: These skeptical statements reveal a curious phenomena among skeptics. Some make authoritative-sounding statements that reveal a total lack of familiarity with the topic about which they pontificate. This one goes beyond that. It's totally deceptive. "All stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian" clearly demonstrates that this person is not familiar with any observations by witnesses, because many of them suggest a connection with deer and predation on deer.

Ok. Once again, I ask: if they are meat eaters, and primates, explain how it would be easier to hunt deer with no tools than it would be to attack isolated human homes? Again, this goes back to the nutritional requirements needed to sustain a breeding community - at the projected size of a Sasquatch 1 deer should serve to feed 15 - 20 of them per day to maintain body weight. Minimal caloric requirements would be over 8000 calories per day.

MM: Again, the anonymous skeptic reveals an embarrassing lack of knowledge about North American ecology. There are mountain lions throughout the western mountains, yet attacks on humans are exceedingly rare, but by the logic of this ignorant skeptic, humans would be routinely killed by mountain lions, especially in Winter. The fact is ... those places where mountain lions reside have abundant natural food supplies. The same applies to bigfoots.

I take serious exception to being called "ignorant" and I believe an apology is in order from Moneymaker. Bipedal primates are not equipped the same way as a mountain lion is, nor can they hunt the same way. Most animals are able to be scared off by a determined human, with certain situational exceptions. A mountain lion will generally not attack a human if easier game is available, such as rabbit, squirrel, grouse, etc. They are quadrupeds, with claws and muscles designed for running down small to medium sized game. Sasquatch is a bipedal primate - no claws, no running muscles that sustain speed for long stretches. It would be far easier for a hunting band of Sasquatch to enter a human domicile and carry off the inhabitants than to run down game animals. As for abundant food supplies, I stand by my statement about dearth of forage in the winter and the amount of food necessary to sustain a breeding population.

his skeptic has no clue about wildlife populations

MM: That sure sounds logical, but it proves that t, and especially predator populations, in North America.

Again, please explain how a bipedal primate can sustain the running speed necessary to run down game when all "eyewitness accounts" indicate a lumbering bipedal gait?

MM: Corpses don't remain corpses for very long, as any ecologist will tell you. A rare population would not leave behind many remains. There are no fossils of chimps or gorillas either.

Again, I stand by my statements about hunter/gatherers - either they are establishing central camps or they are migratory nomads. Either way, unless they are cannibalistically eating their dead, there would be fossil/forensic remains. We can find deer, bear, elk, even human remains in the woods for even years after the decease date. Corpses are not always quickly subsumed into the ecological environment. If the population is that rare, then they would not have lasted all these thousands of years as a genetically viable species. In order to breed smaller groups would either have to live close together or live in traveling proximity in order to facilitate inter-tribal breeding. Such constant travel would have either brought them into undeniable and verified human contact, or would have necessitated establishment of permanent camps in order to ensure inter-tribal contact.

MM: This "skeptic" is probably no more than 13 years old, judging by the laughable stupidity of his statements. To him it's a foregone conclusion that you need a shovel to dig a deep hole, and that shovels are the only tools that would allow someone to dig.

Mr. Moneymaker is beginning to prove at this point that he will immediately jump to an unsupportable conclusion predicated on zero facts. How then can we take anything he postulates seriously? I am 40 years old, I live in West Virginia, and have hunted, hiked, fished, camped, canoed, and kayaked these mountains for over twenty years. A primitive hunter/gatherer tribe would in all likelihood not bury any dead, but any grave they would dig would again be shallow at best if for no other reason than conservation of caloric energy best used in food gathering.

MM: These skeptical statements are so speculative and presumptive that they don't even deserve a response. Even well-read skeptics would find these statements absurd and amateurish.

The insults continue. I really must ask for an apology from Moneymaker over this at this point.
I reiterate: where is the forensic evidence of any Stone Age level tools being found in North America that are not either of Stone Age era origin and can be carbon-dated to that time, or of obvious Native American origin?

MM: Again, this skeptic is pretty clearly a child who is very unfamiliar with the topic, and unfamiliar with any of the related scientific disciplines, such as ecology and zoology.

An apology is in fair order here. Moneymaker's entire credibility is pretty much shot with me from these immature insults. I reiterate: any community with the numbers to maintain genetic viability would have been discovered, documented, and verified as a new species by the scientific, anthropological, and zoological communities by now.

MM: More ignorant spoutings by a frustrated child. The only thing it demonstrates is the lack of moderation on "Yahoo Answers". Anyone can post anonymously. That opens the door for amateurish claims such as those made by this pubescent poster.

Moneymaker has proved by this point that he cannot rationally address valid arguments, only devolve into immature ranting and name-calling.

I stand by every point I have made.

Lord Brion Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods, as known on Yahoo Answers and in the Society for Creative Anachronism,

mundanely known as Brion Woods, LPN.

57 comments:

  1. Smack! Smack! Take that! No, you take this! Smack! Okay, juggling of positions aside, they both make valid points (if not in rather odd inefficient manners). Still, we have only to look at the Mountain Gorilla, once something spoken of by locals and eventually found in the 20th century, to realize that habitats of large primates can exist in a small community and use resources just like bears (equally large) do. The chore is really on the nonbelievers to prove it cannot possibly exist because so long as there are resources and places to hide, it can exist. Or, as Big Ban Theory would point out-it's Schrodinger's cat at this moment in time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see a skeptic being a skeptic and in no way does he attack MM. MM however sounds like the child here! Name calling and putting down the guys questions is sad and reminds me of the kids my wife teaches. It's the job of a "researcher" to prove that his research if factual, and everything you read or see about Bigfoot has a question which is what makes it so interesting.

    The skeptic brought up a few good questions. We have found Bear dens. We have found Mountain Lion dens yet no Squatch dens.(That are proven)

    The thrill of Squatch is the chase and the mystery of a phenomenal creature. I believe they are real, but even if they aren't its just great to see people get back in the outdoors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wish Matt Moneymaker would grant this skeptic some respect and provide him equally compelling arguements, rather than try to demean his credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Autumn the difference with Mountain Gorillas and Bigfoot is the Gorilla wasn't in a heavily populated area. People weren't heading to the Congo or Uganda for vacation (even though I did in college) Yet everyday people hike, hunt, fish, and camp where Bigfoot is suppose to be, and yet they remain a mystery. I don't think they live in groups like Gorillas. I feel they live more like bears, males roam alone and young stay with the sow till they can survive on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lord Bearclaw. Does anyone else know of any nurse that is a Lord. Even Paul McCartney has not become a Lord. I for one will pass on debating this gentleman at his address. Why would one give any kind of credence to someone not studied or versed in a field of knowledge. This reminds me of a rerun of a Monster Quest episode today in the Whitehall Ny corridor. A professor of anthropology a the University of Buffalo named I believe Phillip Stevens said that because these creatures (Sasquatch) are being seen all over the world, makes it inevitable that people are imagining them.

    Are you kidding Me!!

    Incidentally several of the witnesses, some who were law enforcement officers passed lie detector tests.

    Chuck in Ohio

    ReplyDelete
  6. This guy is just like 98% of society, its just a subject that nobody is familiarly with and they can't get over the "humans are most superior being on the planet" frame of mind. Just because they don't leave a PATH OF DESTRUCTION like we do and there are no known findings of tools etc. doesn't mean they don't exist. They are very intelligence to have stayed out of sight for this long. Hell they saw what we did to Native Americans, I'd stay away too. Matt does come off a little smug and opinionated but come on at least he's a grown man that doesn't play dress up and run around in a medieval costume. He gets paid to dress up in camo and do what he loves. Who's the smartest one here? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon in Tx,

    This animal has existed for so long BECAUSE it is smart enough to avoid humans. I don't think we give the squatch enough credit, intellectually.

    Bigfoots_broski states that we "hike, hunt & fish" and they remain a mystery. The vast majority of folks sound like a heard of elephants stomping through the woods. I'm surprised they manage to see any wildlife at all. Tromping down a worn path through a defined park does not constitute exploring the wilds of a forest, its little more than driving down a road.

    Approach your next outing with a different agenda. Leave your high-tech tools behind, venture down a game trail or two and maybe follow one to a water source, find a comfortable vantage point and quietly sit for a while. Leave the bickering and the bullshit behind.

    You will find yourself.

    Who knows what else you will find.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I rarely comment, but this has been frustrating me recently: I just read an argument (a stubborn one, at that), complete with name calling. I keep noticing how little discussion ever takes place on this topic on the Internet or in real life. Proponents and skeptics are decidedly righteous and the conversation quickly becomes a heated debate (or worse - see above) and neither party is the better for it. It seems Sasquatch should be added to the ranks of "religion" and "politics" as conversations to avoid... unless you're looking for a fight. Unfortunate. Now back to Bigfoot.
    -David from the PAC-NW

    ReplyDelete
  9. BB--You don't live in the west, do you? Especially the Northwest? Because you can drive for hours and hours and never see signs of life.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Matt Moneymaker vs. Lord Brion Bearclaw. I haven't heard of a competition so gay since RuPaul's Drag Race.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Autumn your correct I live in Central California, but I graduated college and decided to take a job and live in Yellowstone for 7 years before moving to CA. Funny thing is it took me 3 years to see a Grizzly Bear, and I hiked almost everyday. That is why I feel Bigfoot lives generally alone from other Bigfoots and not in groups.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lord Bearclaw, I just updated this post with your response added to the end of the article. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  13. MM you really had a chance to do good here for Bigfoot. You have a show on TV about Bigfoot, on Animal Planet no less and this is how you handle yourself as the ambassador for this whole Bigfoot movement?. You should be ashamed of yourself. My children could have done a better job than you just did. Educate, teach and have some respect for your cause.You were just a disgrace, and I watch your show.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've deleted Lord Bearclaw's comments here and moved it to the post above.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon in Texas,

    I think I recall reading something Dr. Bindernagle wrote. He initially studied bear populations in the wild. By his estimates, the North American bear population outnumbered sasquatch population by about 500:1. Meaning, you would be about 500 times more likly to see a bear in the woods than a squatch.

    How many of you have seen a bear in the wild (congrats to you AF, I'm sure it was memorable)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've been hunting religiously for 20 years and have only seen 3 bears. 1 while hunting the other 2 hiking. The one I saw hunting I never heard coming until he was right under my tree stand. It's amazing how something as big as a "known" animal can be so quiet when it wants to be. Just image how quiet an unknown (at least to science) creature can be. Also saw a sasquatch and they are definetly in Florida not just the Pacific Northwest.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree James I walked right up on my first one hiking. We once thought we saw a Bigfoot in Yellowstone during the summer but it moved really fast through some trees. That's why I say groups are easier to see while single animals are hard to find.

    ReplyDelete
  18. God......I guess if Matt ever gets pissed at me, he'll post a picture of me wearing pants (Look at my avatar pic).

    ReplyDelete
  19. The property where I hunt has been in my family for years. I am there everyday. It is called bear run for the abundant bear population that used to exist there, this year is the first year I have spotted bear that I know of. Being that I am 25, and am there everyday, how likely is it that if bear can elude me for this long, that a bigfoot couldnt do the same. Hell, I spotted a black panther a few years ago, before even spotting a bear. The likelyhood that a bear can shy away from human contact, but bigfoot cant is obsurd. Lord bearclaw refuses to look at this with an open mind. To be skeptical is one thing, but just as we have yet to prove the bigfoot exists, he has no solid proof that it doesnt exist.Theres a reason that he is a 40 year old male nurse that likes play dress up and is probably afraid to talk to girls.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I want to see Matt's response to this arrogant pom-puss skeptic. He talks about 3rd party verification, and all. Did this guy even graduate high school??? I am always amazed at how stupid and arrogant skeptics are. What's it matter to him if he's proven write. Nothing he gets a big ego trip. What happens if Matt is proven right, a whole new branch of science opens up. A branch that scientists won't be terrified to pursue. That's right terrified to pursue. The reason we haven't gotten as far in science as we would like is that scientists are too worried about their reputations than to actually look at the evidence with open eyes.
    Chad, an angry believer

    ReplyDelete
  21. I understand the skepticism, I was one before I had my encounter. BUT I was still open to the possibility that there could be Bigfoot's. Not a hard up non believer that wouldn't listen to other peoples experiences or intelligent debate. Just like I don't not believe in UFO's but then again I haven't seen anything to tell me otherwise. I'm still open to the possibility. But I know for sure that Bigfoot is real. I saw it with my own two eyes and it wasn't a guy in a suit or a bear. Their is no man or bear that stands 7-8ft tall and can run 30+ mph on two legs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There far less people in the woods than ever.
    there are so many places that have no human contact what so ever.The was a study taken I
    believe it was the Pennsylvania game commission,
    and the average hunter travels no farther than
    250 yds from there vehicle,camp,road etc...
    and it was like 2% travel farther than a 1/4 mile.
    I hunted since I was 5 years old and am now 46.
    my wall is full of trophy deer mounts.
    in that time I have seen 2 bears in the woods
    and we have a descent population in PA.
    there were times hunting with a group of guys
    were we would see a buck go into a patch of small woods. we would make a drive were you can see the other drivers. we would finish the drive with out kicking out the deer. then standing around talking about where to drive next and see
    the same buck run out from where we made the drive.
    how many times I would see a nice deer before the season and never see him until after the season close. And that is a deer, witch are
    not the swiftest animal in the forest.
    Bottom line is that they live in the woods,
    it's there home.even us humans would 9 out of 10 times know if a stranger entered our house.
    I think the only reason there is sightings is that they make mistakes or their curiosity gets the best of them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lord Brion Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods vs. Matt Moneymaker in the UFC Octagon! LOL!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lord Brion Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods needs to get out of his mothers basement!

    ReplyDelete
  25. The illogical, inaccurate, and completely unsupportable attacks continue, I see.

    The poster who asked if I had graduated high school? You do understand what is meant by N-U-R-S-E, don't you? Apparently not - this is what he wrote: "What's it matter to him if he's proven write." What's is a contraction for what is. Write refers to the act of writing - the word you want is "right". I don't have any doubt which one of us graduated high school.

    Extraodinay claims require extraordinary evidence. The skeptic does not have to prove the median, the claimee must prove the deviation.

    I journey up to 25 miles on a hike when I go into the wilderness and camp. I do not blunder my way through the forest, nor am I easily spotted by human or animal. I have encountered many deer, bear, turkey, grouse, snake, and even mountain lion myself.

    The real question is why no one has any responses pedicated in critical thinking skills to seriously address any point I brought up, and why several posters continue to follow Matt's poor example of resorting to immature insults and attacks.

    Lord Bearclaw

    ReplyDelete
  26. Extraordinary, not extraodinay - my "R" is sticking a little on my keyboard.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon in Texas,

    How could you expect ANYONE to take you seriously???

    You have "encountered MANY bear, deer, turkey, grouse, snakes and mountain lions"..... sounds like the Enchanted Forest to me....

    I think maybe your kilt is a little too tight.

    I can see why so many refuse to enter into discussions here.

    TT

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm not in Texas. I am in West Virginia.

    I expect anyone who can engage in critical thinking to take me quite seriously. My hobbies have nothing to do with these debates or my credibility.

    I wear my kilt loose, thank you.

    The only ones casting this website in a negative light are those who efuse to engage in logical discouse and who instead choose to devolve into insults and name-calling.

    Lord Bearclaw

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am from WV and I live in an area of approximately 10,000 acres of forest used for Wildlife management. I have 12 neighbors who live within 1 mile of me. The rest of the area is completely uninhabitated by human beings. This is not uncommon for WV.

    Most people who hike or hunt rarely go far beyond the nearest paved/dirt road. They may think they are true "woodsman" but the fact of the matter is that most of the rugged forests are very rarely visited by human beings. Usually when a bigfoot is sighted, is is near a hiking trail, campsite, country road, etc. Why is this? 99% of the populus does not venture beyond these areas.

    I am 41 years old, and just like the Lord guy who works as the LPN; I hunt, hike, camp, fish. I've done this since I was rougly 10 years old. I have numerous trophy (Pope and Young) animals to show for my efforts.

    I can say without a doubt that most people who claim to be outsdoorsman rarely venture far into the great outdoors. I venture further than most, but still not deep into the backcountry. No one really does in todays world. Those who are on ATVs, (I have one) stay on the ATV trails. Those who hike, hike on the trails, those who camp, camp in or near the camping sites, etc. etc.

    The same logic that the Lord dude mentioned use to make perfect logical sense to me too. That is until I had an encounter with a Sasquatch. I was in disbelief and shock for the longest time after the first event. Only after it happened several more times did I realize that these creatures do exist. I now view the wilderness that I hunt/fish in a totally different way.

    We are not as rugged and adventureous and we like to think.

    Those of you who hunt/hike/camp..think about where and how you went about doing it. Were you truly blazing a new trail, or simply following one that was already prepared by someone for you?

    -Archer1

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hey Lord,
    You know why people are attacking you???
    Because you talk about a subject that you obviously haven't researched. There is a couple famous quotes used by a fellow in the UFO research world named Stanton Friedman who is a nuclear physicist, when he talks about skeptics like yourself. I think they equally apply to bigfoot skeptics too.
    "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up".
    "Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway."

    Have you done any real research??? Read the numerous and various types of reports??? Looked at real print casts in person??? Have you see the photos taken of track ways that lead off into the distance? Have you tried to build a bigfoot suit made from 1960 available materials??? Have you done any real research???

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have read many of the "reports" and "eyewitness accounts" - all of which are anecdotal and constitute no actual empirical proof.

    I have seen "real" casts of footprints, not in person, but in book and film media. Again, such things can easily be faked. Photos of tracks? Leading off into the distance? Where did they go? A sasquatch is not a magical creature. If such could exist it must conform to the same Laws of Physics and physical existence as other creatures that live on planet earth and are of the same scientific order and physiological make-up.

    I have already explained in great detail the anthopological, zoological, cultural, and ecological facts that must govern any species that exists in such a way given the supposed details provided by the Bigfoot "believers". I am not making details up - I am extrapolating from the claims made by your "community". I am "playing by your rules" so to speak - if it was a commonly held belief that Sasquatch could fly then I would be predicating my arguments on the concept of flying creatures.

    Real research? Yes, I have done "real research". Other species can survive genetic isolation by the mechanisms of faster gestations and litter birthing - not so for primates, who generally evidence one young per pregnancy on the average. I am not being "closed-minded", nor am I engaging in personal attacks.

    I simply am mystified why so many of you "community" choose to react emotionally to simple logic and verified fact.

    The quote, "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up" is roughly analogous to saying, "Don't tell me I'm walking towards a cliff, I know it isn't really there."

    Regardless of anecdotal evidence and easily hoaxed "specimens", the only sure way to prove this creature exists is to bring one in, dead or alive. This country has a long history of being armed individually - yet we have no physical specimens after inhabiting this country with modern firearms for roughly 150 years?

    As to my hiking habits - I tend to head far off "trails" and roads and find my own pathways. I would be willing to bet that far more people than you think also hike in such a manner.

    Lord Bearclaw

    ReplyDelete
  32. On a day hike Lord Bearclaw? Try going 15-20 miles off the trail into the backcountry and stay for a few nights in a area knowm for sasquatch.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Day hike? Didn't read far enough did you? This is what I said above: "I journey up to 25 miles (sometimes) on a hike when I go into the wilderness and camp. I do not blunder my way through the forest, nor am I easily spotted by human or animal. I have encountered many deer, bear, turkey, grouse, snake, and even mountain lion myself."

    When I go out I tend to stay out for two to three days, making small temporary camps as necessary.

    My hiking habits are not the point. The simple fact is that all claims and "sightings" ae easily faked, and not one person can provide a scientifically logical reason as to the complete lack of forensic and fossil evidence.

    Lod Bearclaw

    ReplyDelete
  34. North America = 9,365,000 Sq. Miles (24,256,000 Sq. Km)

    25 miles = face palm

    ReplyDelete
  35. Alberta, I reiterate: my hiking habits are not the point. I refuse to be drawn into a pointless debate as I am obviously NOT the only person living in the entire 9,365,000 square miles now am I?

    To post the comparison as though to insinuate that I have not explored the entire continent is analogous to setting up a straw man argument. Of course I haven't explored the whole continent. The real face palm is that this belief is held on to stubbornly in the face of zero forensic or fossil evidence.

    By the "logic" of this belief, everyone should also "believe" Superman is real because there's obviously a lot of video "footage" of him too.

    As I have said before - try to provide a scientifically logical reason to explain the complete lack of anthopological or fossil evidence. Better yet - get the guy that claims to have shot two of them to come forward with a body.

    Lord Bearclaw

    ReplyDelete
  36. For me, in cases like this, I have a tough time calling everyone who has wittnessed (thousands of recorded sightings, and thousands not recorded) a sasquatch a liar. There are a lot of good people, who have a lot to lose, that stand by their stories. Wittnesses right now, are a huge part of the evidence, and I can't call them all liars, or blame it on misidentification. Just too many.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Lord Bearclaw wins this one. Moneymaker is an embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Lord said you said "I have seen "real" casts of footprints, not in person, but in book and film media."
    So seeing footprints in books and films makes you an expert on bigfoot prints, does it? hmm? does it? I think not! This is partly why everyone hates you on here.

    You also said "easily hoaxed "specimens"".
    By your suggestion every big foot print cast is a fake? This is also why everyone is upset at you. You are suggesting directly or indirectly that every cast is faked. Every person who saw an upright animal on 2 legs, made a mistake or is lying. Just because tracks could be hoaxed does not mean that all of them are.

    Did you know that 3 different people have claimed to the guy in suit in the patterson bigfoot film? Which of those 3 debunkers is not lying?

    Just because you haven't seen it yourself when you are out in the woods does not mean that your opinion is the correct one. Everyone who saw a big foot for them selves will tell you otherwise. As MM had pointed out in his rebuttle you have made a few assumptions without bothering to check the facts. You made points that by your logic would make it impossible for even bears and cougars to live in the woods.

    Did you know that in a court of law a person's eye witness testimony isn't easily dismissed you have. If people's eye witness can be relied upon there, why not in here?

    There is another great quote. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
    You should read the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

    Here is another similar subject. Did you know that rouge waves as high as 100 feet were considered impossible and dismissed by science as maritime legends? Oh that's impossible the scientists and skeptics said. That was until a 100 foot wave was recorded to hit an oil platform during a huge storm. All those sailors weren't lying and weren't drunkards. What they saw was real. Just as real as when people see bigfoot themselves. Once it was acceptable to scientist then NASA was willing to look into it and was able to confirm their existence using satellite radar.
    Once scientists get their heads out of the sand, then we will will start seeing real progress with science and bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I thought moneymaker acted rather petulant and doesn't represent the BF community well as a whole. What is it about the subject that brings the total douchebag out of people? It floors me, but both have good arguments, and the whole exercise is proof that arguing with someone like this is a waste of time until there's more proof.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think it's because this Lord guy is indirectly calling everyone a lier that has everyone upset.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's no excuse. The guy uses some extremely poor logic like when he deduces that we're calling everyone a liar. When someone uses poor logic like that you simply exit the conversation because the person obviously doesn't understand proper logic. Don't let your own issues start to come out just because you've engaged with someone who's' a bit dim.

    ReplyDelete
  42. MM obviously get tired of arguing the same points about faked evidence, men in monkey suits, misidentification, yada, yada, yada. Once you have responded to questions like this many, many, times, its time to move beyond these same arguments.

    Experts in the field of foot anatomy, print casting, vocalizations (all of these individuals are often called upon to prove cases in federal/state court as elite expert witnesses withing their field)If these people state that the tracks they have examined are real and not a hoax. That the dermal ridging is real, the midtarsal break is real....what more do you need for scientific analysis. All scientific analysis requires is someone who is qualified withing a chosen field to examine, test, re-examine and then write their findings. This goes for audio sound recordings too. Why do we except these techniques in every other aspect of science, but when it comes to examining alleged bigfoot evidence, skeptics will quickly ignore the findings and say that the evindence is circumstancial.

    I realize that a bigfoot body has not been recovered and until a body is recovered to test the DNA with the documented "unknown primate" DNA, most of the forensic evidence will be looked upon by skeptics as hoaxed, inconclusive, etc.

    It is impossible to discount thousands of eyewitness accounts as misidentification or liar, some of the video as hoaxed, dermal ridging track casts as hoaxes, vocalizations of alleged sasquatch that cannot be lumped into any known living species of animal--as Hoax.

    Seriously, if we don't know a lot about a species of animal, how can we use such a broad brush to paint the habitat of this animal into a very small corner. IE: Bears live this way, deer live this way, etc. so, it a sasquatch were to be real it would do this or that...

    We can only unbiasly examine the evidence left behind. If the experts in the field of anatomy, fingerprinting, etc. say they are authentic and not hoaxed, who are we to start calling them liars too?

    I believe that the Lord needs to read the book by Dr. Meldrum, Sasquatch, Legend meet Science. This book is well written and it covers each topic discussed on this strand. Not only does it attack the issues, it uses scientific testing to back each analogy. Many of the myths floating around out there are also addresses and clearly put to rest.

    We once believed that the Panda bear was only a myth.

    Archer 1

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well said!
    Arguing with a skeptic is useless because like the quote says "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up".

    ReplyDelete
  44. Then he should know better than to engage with them from the get go.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why give this ignorant douchebag the time of day?

    Delete this post and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Real adult behavior. "Ignorant douchebag" my afterburners. It's fairly pathetic that odds are the ones on here throwing out such insults and low-brow invective can produce no intelligent debating skills and therefore can only respond with immature taunting, and also that they have in all probability already produced children who are learning their parent's crude behavioral skills.

    Again I reiterate: belief in this creature is speculative only. There is no validated forensic evidence of such a species, and the "evidence" that is claimed is of an entirely subjective nature and of an unknown etiology, easily faked or compromised.

    Lord Bearclaw

    ReplyDelete
  47. Lord Bearclaw,

    Greetings! I am, was, Lord Richard,Centurion. Got to keep an open mind is all I can suggest for you. These are very elusive creatures, and yes I can say I've seen one before as a child, and no it wasn't a bear.

    Hopefully you get to experience one sometime.

    Ld Richard of Durnford, Centurion.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lord Richard,
    How do you answer the points I have made concerning the necessities and requirements of physical existence when applied to an entire race?

    Lord Bearclaw of the Barony of Blackstone Mountain

    ReplyDelete
  49. Lord Bearclaw,

    The points made are rather broad, but as for you namesake, could a bear be used in comparison perhaps? How many bear are there and how do they continue to survive? Approximately the same size, weight and diet? Bears are doing good and even making a comeback across the US as hunting was being restricted. They don't seem to be eating themselves into non-existence.
    Hope you are fairing well and soon to see a white belt sporting your waist!

    Ld Richard, Centurion, Barony of the Steppes, Ansteorra.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bear are ursines, and are quadrupeds capable of great bursts of speed over short distances. They also have a highly adapted sense of smell and claws with which to find and catch food.

    The purported videos of Bigfoot clearly show a humanoid gait, not an apeish one. Put a large man in the woods, hairy or not, and let him try to run down his prey like a bear and catch it with his hands. He's going to starve.

    What allows man to survive is the ability to think - to alter our environment to suit us, not the other way around. We build snares, traps, weapons, tools. We wear clothing, and we construct shelter from the elements.

    Bear can survive because of their rate of gestation, their huge territorial range, and the number of offspring per litter, among other factors.

    I say again: if Bigfoot existed in the numbers necessary to maintain genetic viability we would have either found concrete zoological evidence of its existence or it would be living in semi-permanent camps and easily spotted by hunters.

    Lord Bearclaw, House Sable Maul,Barony of Blackstone Mountain, Kingdom of Aethelmearc.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Greeting Ld Bearclaw!

    Yes bear do thrive don't they. What I'm trying to state is the size of a bear, and their population does not cause them to destroy their environment.
    In comparison, say if BF were to exist, they would also have the same food supply available to them, so is it not plausible for them to exist in this sense?
    In regards to offspring, bear have 1-3 cubs what, every 2 years or so? We don't know about BF, but their gestation would probably be close to that of most large primates, 9 months for us, slightly less for chimps and gorillas. Where as frequency of births, humans get crazy, but gorillas for example will wait another 4 years typically.
    Many clues that are left or found regarding BF seem to emulate existing behaviors of chimps and gorillas. Nest building, tree breaks, markers.
    A viable colony doesn't dictate that they remain camped out. Chimps and gorillas have a territory and forage through out. Where chimps seem to be more easily found, gorillas are hard to find, even by experienced foresters who take scientist out to observe troops.
    A noted difference is that BF do not live in large troops but tend to be seen most commonly alone, sometimes paired or in a small family group. That should not impair viability, but decrease likely hood of being discovered. Yet we have thousands of people who can make a claim they spotted one. Hunters to hikers, drivers on the road, people from all walks of life.
    So, I can't tell you to believe, I can ask that you keep an open mind to the idea perhaps. It is plausible that they could exist.

    Ld Richard

    ReplyDelete
  52. Regarding; The purported videos of Bigfoot clearly show a humanoid gait, not an apeish one. Put a large man in the woods, hairy or not, and let him try to run down his prey like a bear and catch it with his hands. He's going to starve.

    I agree if man were to have to chase down their food, it would be a bit different. Who says BF do?
    What has been suggested is when hunting deer they tend to use an ambush technique. Stick structures and hides have been found. The building of such structures does not appear to be man made due to the half hazard way they are made. Possible structures in itself make a wonderful study.

    What is being found in the field of deer and other carcasses is that there is a broken leg bone, snapped legs or the neck is twisted and broken. No sign of chewing or biting of bones so it tends to excludes wolves, coyotes or others. So what is twisting and breaking legs and necks? No known species, so we're left with the unknown.

    How do they catch them? Stealth perhaps. Perhaps due to their remaining still,yet another reason they aren't seen so frequently. It's easy enough for game to come along a trail, reach out and 'snap'.

    Just a thought..

    Ld Richard

    ReplyDelete
  53. he appeared icon and drag it into the Gmail's Password box. By doing this, the hidden password under the asterisks would be shown to you immediately.click here

    ReplyDelete