Leaderboard

In my opinion this is an area of discussion that is entirely moot. "Science, science, science!" the cries from the angry mob ring out. Science is wonderful. It has answered many questions man has come up with. It has given us the ability to heal sickness, and allowed us to even have this very conversation. What it has not done is given us proof of Bigfoot's existence. Not only has it not given us the proof, but it doesn't even give us a chance to do so. What the scientific method has done is given non-believers and skeptics, as well as certain "researchers" who do nothing more than demand proof from someone else, a nice, safe facade to hide behind. Let me explain. The scientific method follows a certain set of guidelines or rules. To prove something exists, or certain reactions occur, etc. science follows this process to reach conclusions and find answers. Observations are made, a hypothesis is formed, testing is done, data is recorded, and conclusions are drawn. Once this is done, the information is passed along to another scientist who in turn follows the same steps to determine if they reach the same conclusions based on the resulting data of the experiment or testing performed. Papers are published, explaining the process and how the conclusions were reached, which are then read by other scientists who either agree or disagree. Some of which may even perform experiments and tests to see if they reach the same conclusions. That's the "peer review" that gets talked about so much. Another aspect of this is identifying controls and variables. Without understanding of those, one cannot properly read the data or execute the experiment in a true scientific manner. Seeing how I am not an accredited scientist, I could be wrong about some of the details, but I believe and understand the above to be the general idea of the scientific method, and how it is executed. It's been awhile since the 3rd grade science fair. According to this understanding that the scientific method includes controlled testing and experimentation, both of which must be repeatable by others, I do not see how this could be applied to proving Bigfoot's existence. So of course it's easy to hide behind the argument of demanding scientific proof, because scientific proof is not attainable through the usage of scientific method. The only way to reach scientific proof would be obtaining a specimen. To try and demand scientific proof of one's claims, or insist on the scientific method to be applied to all evidence findings is ridiculous. A Bigfoot sighting or encounter is an event in time. By the time it is reported it has become a historical event, in other words, it has already taken place. It is not something that can be tested or repeated. Unless of course you have some sort of time traveling device or way to observe past events. We do not use the scientific method to try and prove events that have taken place. For instance, please explain to me how one could use the scientific method to prove that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. I'm sure everyone reading this has observed a shooting star, but can you prove to me scientifically that you did? The best you could hope for is that I have observed one myself, and therefore I know your claim is possible. Unfortunately in this area of study, people often times want the proof and refuse to believe the claims of others, but never venture out into the woods to find out for their own. Either way, events that occur in time are accepted based on eye witness testimony and recorded documentation. Witnesses observed Lincoln being shot by Booth. Not only did they see it, but they wrote about it. Certain individuals at the time recorded and collected the physical evidence left at the scene of the event. This is why it is accepted as having taken place. Not because some scientist tested it in a lab according to the scientific method, but because enough people observed it, it was documented, and evidence of the event was found and collected. All of which has happened over and over again throughout recorded history of man in regard to Bigfoot. THAT is how science and the scientific community have failed us, by refusing to even officially inquire about the possibility of this thing’s existence. Are you trying to tell me that after all of these years and years of reported sightings, by people from all walks of life, after all of the thousands of sighting reports taken and investigated, after all of the track finds, hair samples, scat samples, audio recordings, videos, photographs, limb formations, rock stacks, bone piles, animal kills, hand prints, finger prints, and any other recorded physical evidence, some of which has been authenticated by experts in their respective fields, none of it is worth even one single official scientific inquiry? Really? Yet slight possible changes in our atmosphere that scientists weren't 100% certain of even existing was enough to invest in and carry out a long-term scientific investigation into the possible effects of cow flatulence. Peer review? Sure, we can discuss that. Peer review is great when carried out by unbiased, qualified experts. Where do these exist within the Bigfoot research community? It has been my experience that those are harder to find than actual Bigfoot. What’s the point of submitting something for peer review when you already know what the results will be? Submit it to your friends and the people who agree with your opinions and you will get positive opinions in return. Submit it to people who have never heard of you or do not agree with your viewpoints, and they will trash it. The fact that people like or dislike others in the community based on their opinions about Bigfoot is ridiculous enough. Trying to organize some sort of peer review out of it all is a fool’s errand. Couple all of this with the fact that the person submitting the evidence for peer review, more than likely did not follow procedures nor standards during the collection of so said evidence that would be considered acceptable by the scientific community. The majority of us are not accredited scientists. In turn, most do not follow proper scientific procedures when collecting evidence. This all makes the notion of offering up evidence for scientific scrutiny and peer review pointless. Science doesn’t consider us acceptable sources for information or collectors of evidence, our evidence itself is not considered acceptable, and our peer review consists of more unacceptable and unqualified individuals. The people out there demanding that things be carried out in a scientific manner are already aware of these obstacles. They know it is an impossible task, therefore continue to use it as their argument. Bigfoot stays impossible to prove, evidence of their existence remains worthless, and the cycle continues. Take a look at Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an accredited scientist and expert in his particular field. He has studied numerous tracks and track casts. He has done the proper science, followed the proper procedures, and has told the entire world that at least some of these tracks are authentic and warrant further scientific inquiry. Did it happen? Did the scientific community so much as bat an eyelash? In my opinion it is a fruitless endeavor to try and hold ourselves to the strictest scientific standards, when most of us are not considered qualified to even do so. As a whole we have accomplished very little. Our methods are flawed and unacceptable to the scientific community. Our evidence is not properly documented and recorded. Our encounters and sightings are left to remain as nothing more than stories with no foundation of scientific proof to be had. Investigations are carried out with limited time and resources, and usually end up incomplete at best. Science refuses to work with us, refuses to accept any of our evidence, and in most cases cannot be applied to what we actually do. Personally, I feel a change is needed. I feel the direction to go at this point is away from the scientific method, and instead focusing on forensic methods. In my mind, the most scientific way to approach Bigfoot research is not to approach it as a testable experiment based on theory, but more as a crime scene. It starts with thorough and detailed interviews of witnesses. Collecting and recording all possible data, no matter how insignificant it may seem. Field locations need to be exhaustively investigated. Sighting locations need to be as controlled as possible to avoid contamination. Any physical evidence found needs to be thoroughly recorded, measured, photographed, and then if need be, properly collected so that no contamination occurs during the process, and as much detail as possible is retained. The entire procedure used for the collection of the evidence needs to be recorded as well. That way we can go back and not only show how we did something, but review and learn from any mistakes we may have made or missed ourselves. Everything needs to be extensively documented and recorded, and investigations need to be carried out until their conclusion. That way we do have something somewhat tangible. We do have something to offer up for peer review where others can go back and see exactly what we did and how we reached our conclusions. Years down the road, others can go back and go over this information themselves to compare to their own findings. This type approach would allow us to more easily look for and find any patterns that might be there. If others got on board and started following these same type procedures, we could actually compare our collected data with one another, which just may open some of those doors that have been closed for so long. At the very least give us an idea of which directions to go in. I certainly feel that this approach would allow us to have something that actually would be worth presenting for peer review, and possibly give the scientific community something worth looking at or taking notice of.