Jump to content

Researchers In The Field


yowiie

Recommended Posts

Thought I would start this thread to find out who are the researchers doing the hard yards, this is not for arm chair researchers.

By getting some names fellow researchers can pm others to chat and share info, which could be beneficial to each party

Sharing info here only ends up either having the thread terminated or just a general bitch fight with the know it all skeptics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with some of the terminology used.  I have preconceptions of what I would consider a researcher from my early years in school, and then honed over decades.  What, exactly is a "researcher?"  Could a "hunter" be a researcher, or just an interested hunter?  If some go on extended recons in the field, is that a researcher?  If some also do a lot of reading and analyzing narratives, does that also contribute to the title of researcher?  So.  What is a bigfoot researcher?

 

I also have a problem with the term, Habituator.  A long-term witness?  How long?  What's the criteria to be a "habituator?"  How long is a long term witness?  How many events of interaction, and what level of interaction or closeness are required to cross into the habituator realm?

 

I have a problem understanding exactly what is to be considered "evidence?"  We hang people in this country based on eyewitness evidence.  So why are eyewitnesses automatically discounted in the field of large relict species?  Observation is 99% of science.  What constitutes replication of experimentation?  Does that too, also have to be observed?  

 

I no longer seem to have an understanding of what "science" is, as I've seen applications here that I was taught were NOT science.  Duplication of an experiment, or duplicate observation is supposed to be at least tried before dismissal.  Otherwise, science could not advance, and everything would be a postulation.  For someone to dismiss observations without them getting off their sorry ***es and doing their own work, is not skepticism - it's a retarded laziness.

 

When some observers see something at a distance, it's entirely reasonable to allow for the possibility of mis-identification.  But to dismiss narratives from every historical period, from almost every populated area of earth, from almost every culture on earth, is to be one lazy, disingenuous, willfully contrary, narrow-minded, inexperienced, incapable human imposter.

 

It's almost like they're jealous that others have either put in the work and have seen these critters, or that some of us, who just happened to be doing work in a very remote area just ran into one.

 

But that's not our fault.  Maybe the fact that you haven't either seen one, or interacted to some degree with one or more, maybe it's your fault.  Others who haven't had personal sightings, but through the preponderance of evidence allow for the existence of these critters - yours is not so much a matter of faith - but a matter of acknowledgement.

 

I've never seen the Eiffel Tower.  I'm pretty sure it's there, but I'd be one simple-minded jacka** if I denied its existence until someone either brought it into my range of vision, or somehow, by accident - I actually saw it myself - from where I'm sitting.  I have it on good report that there were two huge Twin Towers in New York.  They're not there now, so I can't personally verify that they existed.  So what stance do I take?  Deny they existed?  Deny the photographic evidence?  Deny the thousands of narratives that they existed?

 

Just how dumb would that be?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fararcher

I am after hunters/ researchers what ever you want to call them, people who are out searching for evidence that have had sightings / encounters

Does that make it a bit clearer

I don't want replies from people whao have had encounters, only people who are active in there search for BF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

You won't find that many on here Mr Yowie, a few but not that many.

However, when you accept that we have the best part of 2k actual visual sighting reports in our SSR and an enormous chunk of them (around 35%) are from witnesses who have been driving, I'd say anyone who is regularly driving roads at any time of the day in North America could be actually classed as a researcher as they've got just as much chance if not more so than someone who is in the middle of a forest hiding behind any tree they can, wearing camo and thinking that they've found Sasquatch tracks when they're in fact overlapping bear tracks.

Insane numbers imvho, but the reality where research is concerned.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

I think there are many "researchers" here, it's just that they don't think of themselves that way, nor want to be portrayed that way.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm out in our area couple days a week. Putting out and picking up audio recorders and cameras, looking for tracks, ect. If I'm not listening too my own audio I'm listening to someone elses audio or video. We do a lot of field research with several encounters over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fararcher

I am after hunters/ researchers what ever you want to call them, people who are out searching for evidence that have had sightings / encounters

Does that make it a bit clearer

I don't want replies from people whao have had encounters, only people who are active in there search for BF

 

I like that thinking.  A waste of time from people who've had encounters.

 

Much better info from those who actively seek them, but haven't actually had any close encounters.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yowiie, I guess I fit into that category. Since I haven't had a face to face encounter. I'm also a researcher in the scientific sense of the word. The evidence we are finding is becoming repeatable and measurable. We don't use a lot of high tech devises, a digital recorder, camera and precision measuring tools for analysis. As Fararcher said I have seen enough evidence to acknowledge their existence.

The important thing for what we do is spending time in the field, boots on the ground. Then doing the tedious work of analyzing, measuring and cataloging what we find. As my signature below states, it isn't always what we are looking for.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are many "researchers" here, it's just that they don't think of themselves that way, nor want to be portrayed that way.

Independent private researchers... :) No drama, no politics, no non-disclosure contracts, no youtube channels. Just quietly looking into this for ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

Yup, the minute you label yourself a "researcher", everyone starts demanding you publish your results and if you haven't been lucky enough to obtain any evidence or simply don't want to share it, you're a failure.

 

That's why so many just don't advertise their efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

Ok, name one "successful" researcher.

Edited by gigantor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

Ok, show us what you got, how have you succeeded?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest jeffrey65

I research in Colorado. Campout and research about every other weekend. Our group is Sasquatch investigations of the Rockies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...