Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[Guest parnassus]

Whether we like it or not as individuals understanding the ''mechanics'' of how the scientific community operates is crucial to both understanding why the study of Bigfoot hasn't been mainstreamed, and how we can better format our evidence to the requirements.

yes.

realistically, much as I love the sounds of the wild, no sound recordings are ever going to be anything probative. Like imprints, reported visual encounters and broken branches, there is no way to prove they weren't made by man, nature or some other animal. When I hear an elk sound, I use that to find the elk. I may not get a shot, but I can at least get pictures, poop, etc. That is the utility of sounds. The Michigan Recording Project (as I understand it), to a scientist, would be ludicrous: Years of sitting in lawn chairs, listening????!!! while the greatest discovery in history is 100 yards away? come on....

It's either divergent DNA or a body for proof (I in no way condone, recommend, or suggest attempting to kill one); or clear, stable, unobstructed photographic/video (not thermal) images to get financial support. So use the sounds to help obtain these kinds of evidence, or to find out what other source there is for the sounds...you might be surprised.

You should be in contact with your local wildlife agencies and a university zoologist, if you want credibility in science and want to avoid wasting years of time, effort and money. Many studies seem to show good results but, under scrutiny, are pretty worthless because the study wasn't properly planned before a single bit of data was obtained. You can't play the game outside their rules and still expect that your supposed "touchdown run" won't be "called back" because of an "illegal formation".

Stay away from the "entrepreneurs."...you will never get the science or the money or the fame from them. That's not the game they play. They will stack the deck with NDA's and press conferences and cable shows so they make the fame and money and everything and everyone else can go to the hot place. If nothing else, that is the lesson to be learned from the current extravaganza.

You have to choose which path you want to take. Science or Georgiafoots.

Those are just my opinions. Saskeptic may disagree (of course, in that case, he'd be wrong).

[Guest RayG]

Bigfoot science for the most part was and still is pseduoscientific. Now before you tar and feather me, this is what Alan Cromer said about the fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience in his book Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science (page 155) --

"In science all knowledge is public knowledge, that is, knowledge based on evidence strong enough to convince essentially the entire scientific public. In pseudoscience, private knowledge based on personal insight, intuition, or belief is confused with public knowledge."

Anyone else see any similarities with how 'bigfoot science' is conducted? We've got people claiming all sorts of things about bigfoot. That they live in family groupings on their property, that bigfoot imitate owls and other animals/birds, that bigfoot smoke cigarettes, build wooden structures, toss pine cones, go into 4x4 mode, leave butt prints in the mud, and numerous additional claims too lengthy to list here. What's missing from all of these claims is confirmation. They all come down to private knowledge based on personal insight, intuition, or belief, and like it or not, that's just not good science.

So that's why, after 40+ years of following this mystery, when I hear more unsupported claims about bigfoot, it does nothing but push me further away from my original belief in bigfoot.

RayG

[Guest]

parnassus, not too bad a summary of the problem,

I do think there are some productive things BFers can do to move away from the entrepreneurs and more toward academia. I think Audubon does a good job of bridging amateurs to scientists and with an opportunity to add to the data base... ornithology has it's unique problems too...

just a thought.... perhaps the BF community is ready to choose science, or at least a majority, and then perhaps what seems insurmountable today will seem less so in the future...

We needed start at perfection..

[Guest Jodie]

I think you are over estimating the sophistication of most bigfooters. You aren't the first to suggest this and you won't be the last, all things considered.

[Guest]

I think you are over estimating the sophistication of most bigfooters. You aren't the first to suggest this and you won't be the last, all things considered.

yep _ I am aware of that part of the issue, which it makes it even better to have a guiding society - based on principles rather than relationships?

But, I really don't see myself tackling that kind of organizational nightmare for the same reason most don't or it doesn't happen. When we are paid to do jobs, we manage to almost get along....but when we pay to "Bigfoot" well...you get what we have!

Some stick it out for the decades and work those very tight circles...and some write books, or make movies...but most leave the BF thing altogether and just tuck the knowledge in their heart..

[Guest parnassus]

??how did you get a Lakota handle??

I have one also but I can't post it.

[Guest ajciani]

The issue of publishing a bigfoot journal, is in the type of data available, which primarily consists of direct observations and some physical evidence, mostly due to the evasiveness of the subjects. Of course, this kind of information is perfectly fine for publishing, it just isn't all that earth shattering, and it gets published by multiple means. If you think about it, the BFRO database IS a reviewed bigfoot journal.

Looking back at a lot of 18th and 19th century scientific literature concerning biology, anthropology, and ecology, most of it is nothing more than reports of observations. A report on the appearance of an indigenous tribe, perhaps accompanied by a carving or a photograph. Someone describes a never before reported pattern on a jaguar. A well known biologist describes the unique dentition of an ape woman (about which he was actually wrong). This kind of observational report dominated the natural science literature well into the 1960s. It was about that time scientists started becoming less interested in the appearance of an indigenous tribe, and more interested in why they appeared that way.

As for anthropologists... there are good ones, and there are some real loons. If I had to name the field of science filled with the most guess work and opinion, and the least science, I would say anthropology, followed by psychology. Interestingly, both fields deal with the study of humans, and both originate from rather dubious backgrounds. Anthropology basically evolved out of tomb robbing. Anthropology was so focused on tomb robbing, that the tomb robbers, while raiding the ruins of Greek temples, would carelessly throw out the artifacts that the ancient Greeks worshiped at those temples, or in Egypt, they would destroy mummies after stripping them of their valuables; all in the name of science.

Perhaps if anthropology was a little more about science, and a lot less about tomb raiding, we would know significantly more about the paleo-indian civilizations of North America, and we might not even have this forum, because we would already know who the bigfoots are, and what a lesson they seem to be. We would not be reading digests of giant skeleton finds and ancient tombs on conspiracy theory websites, but instead know where those artifacts are displayed, and could read about them in the literature.

To conclude, putting together a bigfoot journal is quite doable, and there is no reason to consider that it would be any less credible or scientific than the past 150 years of Nature or Scientific American. It could be quarterly, and contain:

• The best of the quarter's investigated bigfoot encounters, along with details of evidence collected.
  
• Any reasonably certain photographs taken.
  
• Any reasonably validated video or audio captured (published on-line).
  
• Expedition reports and observations, particularly ones that provide insights into bigfoot behavior.
  
• Reviews of bigfoot literature and associated evidence.
  
• Experiments that have been conducted and the results.
  
• New methods that have been attempted.
  
• Analysis of physical evidence.
  
• Anything else bigfoot related which the editor and reviewers find important enough to include.
  

BTW, interesting little bit on peer review from Scientific American.

[Guest]

nice post ..sorry lost quote..

So, yes I think a Journal of sorts would be doable too, and it appears Meldrum is trying such...just not much guidance there on exactly what..maybe that is a good thing. Little thin on any review board too..but it is infant beginning?

The advantage to a dedicated Journal? seems obvious to me.. but then I have shied away from telling "my story" b/c that part is personal...and requires a love of writing storytelling and confidence anyone would read! Data collection and at least tentative conclusions...that isn't personal, it just is, and that seems worth saving in some format for others in the future.. .

and maybe not.... my grandkids maybe

[Guest]

To always fall back on ''we need a body'' is yes, desirable, but until one walks in the door what else can we do with what we have? We can wait for a body or innovate our own thinking and follow the evidence.

I would suggest that if bigfooters innovated their own thinking to follow the evidence that they'd reach the same conclusion I have: there is no bigfoot. If someday a bigfoot materializes it would be great to pronounce that I was wrong and celebrate that discovery, but we're no closer to bigfoot now than we were 50 years ago.

That's OK. Nature is still really amazing and there are wonderful things awaiting discovery, even if "bigfoot" isn't one of those things.

[Guest]

I would suggest that if bigfooters innovated their own thinking to follow the evidence that they'd reach the same conclusion I have: there is no bigfoot. If someday a bigfoot materializes it would be great to pronounce that I was wrong and celebrate that discovery, but we're no closer to bigfoot now than we were 50 years ago.

That's OK. Nature is still really amazing and there are wonderful things awaiting discovery, even if "bigfoot" isn't one of those things.

Hi - Just thought I would poke my head up and say I usually try to start a post with agreement, but your position is a familiar one to me, taken by my oldest son as my witness to BF's unfolded. And I just want to give you a heads up - you are wrong.

Can I prove it? No, you would not accept my evidence, not unless I had your personal audience, you could feel and touch the stuff I collected, run through the digital media yourself, ask questions till the sun goes down and finally...maybe you just might think there was "something" out there..but in limited numbers if not just one!

If we wait for a body (that gets butchered and sold) well, what a waste, especially for those of us who know the truth and think for some weird reason the world should also know (we waiver on that as well!)....

It seems valid to seriously collect credible and meaningful evidence and observations in a Journal now. Why wait for science unfunded or uninterested to tell us so..or to live at the mercy of BF mercenaries/entrepreneurs? Well it takes a lot of effort and no money...so most Professional Society's charge a membership fee to fund.....and oh, wow it sounds like a lot of effort.... :0

[Guest]

If we wait for a body . . . what a waste . . .

It seems valid to seriously collect credible and meaningful evidence and observations in a Journal now.

Without a body, there's no way to know if what you've collected is evidence of a bigfoot. Hence, no matter how seriously collected, it is unpublishable.

[Guest mitchw]

Hi Sas, I'm missing something. Why is a body the 'if and only if' condition for bigfoot, when paleontology can rely on fossilized bones of incomplete creatures? Why are the types of flesh associated with bigfoot, eg hair, footprints, and DNA, so unreliable? And what do you say to people that claim to have seen a biggie up close?(I haven't) That they are either daft or lying? I know I don't believe my own thoughts to that degree.

[Guest StankApe]

Fossils ARE a body though. and if people want to claim that Bigfoot exists NOW, then a specimen will be required for species confirmation ,taxonomy and further study... That's the way the natural sciences work.

[Guest]

Hi Sas, I'm missing something. Why is a body the 'if and only if' condition for bigfoot, when paleontology can rely on fossilized bones of incomplete creatures?

"A body" is verbal shorthand for any kind of physical evidence that can serve as the "type specimen" for the description of any new species, bigfoot or otherwise. A single tooth would be great as a physical specimen. I have long advocated that bigfoot hunters would have better luck cruising the streambanks for fossils than camping out in the woods call-blasting and what-not.

Why are the types of flesh associated with bigfoot, eg hair, footprints, and DNA, so unreliable?

These could work as physical evidence of a bigfoot but thusfar none has panned out as confirmation of bigfoot. I'm on record just requesting one decent photograph . . .

And what do you say to people that claim to have seen a biggie up close?(I haven't) That they are either daft or lying?

People who claim to have seen a bigfoot could very well have seen a bigfoot, but I can't attach a specimen tag to an anecdote and curate it in a museum as proof of a new species. There are multiple non-bigfoot examples that offer competing explanations for claims of eyewitnesses, including "daft", "lying", mistaken identity, hoaxed, healthy but hallucinated, etc.

[Guest mitchw]

Sas, you wrote that you,'...have long advocated that bigfoot hunters would have better luck cruising the streambanks for fossils than camping out in the woods call-blasting and what-not.'

I recall that last year David Paulides and Ketchum spoke very briefly about a leg bone specimen that had been found in a riverine setting. If I am not wrong, and this sample's DNA is meaningfully similar to the current blood work being done, then what is a reasonable conclusion?