Talk:Bigfoot

Why They Deny

Perhaps a section could be added to discuss the various alleged motivations that are said to be common amongst those claiming "hoax" or that otherwise doubt or deny Bigfoot existence. These might include: government cover-ups, academic peer derision, and creationism incongruity. MStettler (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

People who have no evidence for their beliefs all the time try to invent excuses for why their beliefs are not accepted. That is part of the core of all pseudosciences. No reason to add those excuses here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@MStettler To explore the motivations behind an action (denial) is very germane to the topic at hand. If the motivations are found to be indefensible, it may explain why mainstream academia does not take this topic seriously, or why the park ranger does not report what she saw overnight, or why deniers are reluctant to even consider the possibility of new truths that start out as myths and folklore. If the motivations are defensible, then refuting the allegations of dubious motives behind denials will be easy and understandable. 108.24.168.218 (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article, not for your fantasies about why people do not agree with you. (Actually, they do not agree with you because your evidence is crap.)

You can only improve the article using reliable sources. See WP:RS to identify those. I don't expect you will find any reliable source which calls Bigfoot non-believers "deniers". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Goofball statues of the imaginary creature "Bigfoot"

The two statues of the imaginary "Bigfoot" in the pictures that I recently removed from the article are comically bad, and they degrade the article. The one in the Garden of the Gods Wilderness is hilarious with its depiction of a gorilla (lazy sculptor, and look at the nose) with a massive 60s French-girl hairdo, and the one at the Crystal Creek Reservoir does not depict anyone's description of a creature they think they saw, or pretend that they saw, but rather, it depicts a bald-headed 60s hippie with a beard, a Fu Manchu moustache, and size 36 feet. Personally, I believe they were done as satire or spoofs, and anyone who takes them seriously is the victim of a joke, or perhaps the perpetrator of one. Sorry, but they are garbage as art and as depictions of this ridiculous imaginary creature. There are actually much better ones out there, made by actual artists. These goofy joke creations don't belong in the article. Carlstak (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For the reader's delectation:

• 
  "Bigfoot" statue in the Garden of the Gods Wilderness with gorilla features and a massive, perfectly-parted hairdo, just like every stylish Jim Morrison-worshipping Bigfoot had in 1967
• 
  Crude carving of baldheaded "Bigfoot" with beard and Fu Manchu moustache at the Crystal Creek Reservoir in Colorado; note his pearly whites and the pontoon feet. This one really kills me.

Carlstak (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

When you're dealing with an imaginary creature, who's to say what features are definitively "accurate"? And, like it or not, the various statuary is part of the pop culture surrounding the legend of Bigfoot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, LuckyLouie. Well sure, "who's to say what features are definitively 'accurate'?"; the thing is, it's just silly to depict this imaginary creature, who's supposed to be living a survivalist existence in the wilderness, with a perfectly-parted coif and neatly-combed beard arranged just so, and even sillier, nay ridiculous, to depict it as a human with long straight hair, a Fu Manchu moustache, a Roman nose, and a gleaming white smile. If I ever have the time, I will be happy to create some non-ridiculous images that depict it more "realistically" (if I may use the word) as an animal that ekes out its existence in the woods (which I have actually done). Not a pretty sight like our salon-visiting gorilla, and the smell—worse than a skunk.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

While we would be grateful for more accurate images of the legend, the "silly" carvings nonetheless exist as part of the Bigfoot phenomenon, and the stated arguments for their removal purely based on aesthetic violate WP:OR (though I would agree that much of the modern Bigfoot phenomenon is ridiculous). TNstingray (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I take your point, TNstingray—but I don't reject them on aesthetic grounds as much as because they do not actually represent the features of any animal matching the more detailed descriptions given by people who have reported seeing one. Rather, I believe they are cartoonish representations of nothing but the imaginations of their creators, of the sort intended to appeal to the crowds who visit public attractions and parks, like similar statues of Yogi Bear and Boo Boo. These in the article look like Tarzan's sidekick, the chimpanzee "Cheetah" (with a gorilla face) wearing a wig, and Lil' Abner's hippie cousin. I think I remember seeing police sketch artists' interpretations that were much more "realistic", if I may use the word, than these amusement park-type statues. Carlstak (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it does say a lot about the nature of much of the Bigfoot phenomenon, that the creature is seen more as this fun and silly legend (a la Harry and the Hendersons), as opposed to anything with a potential historical/scientific reality (which is unfortunate, because that is where I personally lean). TNstingray (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, why does this look familiar? Oh yeah! - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha, I noticed that too and forgot about it! Carlstak (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

So I created an image of Florida Bigfoot (not Skunk Ape) using an AI program that I got an invite to, using command prompts describing such an imaginary creature, and added it to the article. I think it did a much better job than than the hacks who created the goofball statues.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Image of non-existent Florida Bigfoot created using an AI program

The carvings and statues currently in the article showcase Bigfoot's relation to popular culture; specifically with tourism. The "Shawnee Bigfoot" [1] for example, is a roadside attraction and public art piece. Your A.I. generated image is another "artistic depiction", but realistically we must leave personal opinions out of this and focus on the question, "Does this contribute to the article as a whole?" That's the question we must ask here.Bloodyboppa (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the AI images are a unique way to flesh out some of these more abstract cryptid/supernatural/mystery articles, especially with all of the advances in that technology. We have other artistic depictions, and as long as we are specifying that it is an artistic depiction (as it currently is), I am voting in favor of its usage. There may need to be broader Wikipedia consensus for this concept of AI art as a whole though, but I think it is important for Wikipedia as a company to be versatile and adaptive. It helps with the public domain/licensing issue for images if users freely upload them here. TNstingray (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree, I couldn't have said it better. Carlstak (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"The masked being" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The masked being and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#The masked being until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Bigfoot the bigfooted" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bigfoot the bigfooted and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Bigfoot the bigfooted until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)