Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[Guest]

Naw you're cool, in another thread I saw her say she was a 120 pound woman in her 50's or something like that. Either way, it's all good.

AZbigfoot knows me I think? Many do, is not a secret in private, just not comfortable in such public forums. Stupid me thought it would be Okay to mention BF in public...LOL... it has been costly socially and professionally...but in the end, I think I prefer the time I spent in the forest than all the "happening" friendships I have had! Seriously, I am damaged now...my thoughts turn to the forest too often!

anyway, these forums hard to keep up with:

I saw a "quote" from Bindernagel in Bigfootevidence.blogspot and for the most part we were willing to believe the post. I was suspicious b/c I have corresponded with him and he didn't strike me as kind that post (never thought I would be either..).

So, I "bit" and poor out heart..and in truth I did..always do, as is my favorite hope..and AZ knows what I refer to - to buy this ranch up for sale and put back into research/wilderness.. Ok big dream.

But, it keeps me "open" and so the conversation continues...the room gets excited.

Anyway a red flag pops up: in the last post Dr. Bindernagel cites to Mogllon Monster as the exemplary group of amateur BFers! Then I knew wasn't him and pretty obvious who b/c the next story blog was...you guessed it: Mogllon Monster... LOL

now, I can't see Shawn's IPs..but it was pretty clear to me then and I wrote Bindernagel and sure 'nuff not him...

So, you know guys....it is this type that has confounded me from the day I tried to turn to BF community....it really is incredible...so why I push a professional group....rather than having to call those Bozos to the mat....instead they just have to achieve to attain...by being published by their peers?

It seems like the time....but then again this has been going on 50years!

Anyway heads up...this group is bent on making trouble at that site...and in the last week the imposter posts have revealed may of those....perhaps more will do it and also be exposed. Not sure what Shawn will do, I do know he pulled the story.

p.s.yes i guess Apehuman is masculine..I just thought accurate! but my FB pen name is my son's b/c I didn't want to use mine and he is passed so not stealing anyone's....but it is funny

1. Haven't seen his name in 20 years...and now I do almost everyday..and long ago enough it doesn't hurt...but reminds me how lovely he was. 2. BFers ... I learned really quick with that pen name - men and women write to me differently if they think I am a man! The difference in tone and acceptance of what I am saying is remarkable..nuff said there. .

Edited December 10, 2011 by apehuman

[Guest Jodie]

Well Ape- Most don't have the ability to do any kind of research or know where to even start with peer review. It's a matter of lay man's opinion versus opinion so far, and will likely stay that way until bigfoot is recognized publicly.

If you have a good research area, are seeing bigfoot, and lots of evidence to indicate that bigfoot are in your area, I would say that you have what you need already. Pick some small piece of evidence and try to think of a ways to prove what isn't responsible, then go from there. Document everything, borrow protocols from OSHA and criminal justice investigation techniques. There are even protocols from other professions regarding interviewing witnesses.

That would be a very good thing to work on, developing and using a standardized interview tool. It could be used in conjunction with the classification system that Gigantor is working on and is one step towards converting qualitative data to quantitative data for statistical analysis. You could write your own online journal, and if you know some professionals willing to evaluate and review your methods, that is a good place to start. I wouldn't wait on anyone else, just do it yourself under a pseudonym.

Developing good processes for data collection would need to be done first before any relevant conclusions could be made, from which articles could be written for peer review.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest]

Actually since peer review has apparently been corrupted it's kind of a moot point. Sure it's still the best system we have, but it's no longer the icon it once was. It would appear we're moving into a new paradiam of scientific verification so chasing the old one is like asking women to get back in the kitchen....kinda pointless.

The thread was about finding supportive correspondences in non-BF related science studies which I'm not really suprised folks aren't doing...LOL. Disappointed yes, but not really suprised. There was a new study about visual perceptual learning fMRI out that may shed some light on a few things...

[Guest]

New study on neanderthals hot off the presses.....guessing we can now speculate as to Bigfoot's neuro-differences using observations of cranial shape......

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n12/full/ncomms1593.html#/access

scroll up after hitting the link.

[Guest parnassus]

New study on neanderthals hot off the presses.....guessing we can now speculate as to Bigfoot's neuro-differences using observations of cranial shape......

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v2/n12/full/ncomms1593.html#/access

scroll up after hitting the link.

Has someone compiled accounts of cranial shape?

Edited December 14, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

They are, if observed, within the witness reports. There is also the lovely images of Patty in the PGF, altho there are enough threads devoted to all things PGF.

[Guest]

I think there are a lot of good idea's here. I can even think of a few examples of amateurs out there who are approaching it all from a more scientific approach than they may even realize. Often I read of "hotspots" and then it seems you get a rush of people running off trying to find the holy grail. Then you have the slow and steady people,who don't hop all over the place, chasing. Short term expatiation's and the like are mostly a waste of time.I think it will one of the fringe you tube types who will crack this, and the people who will most likely speak out the hardest against them will be many of the big foot people themselves. A long term study does not have to involve huge grant money or anything like that. A long term study means sticking to your guns,and working the same area for as long as it takes. It involves discipline, and documentation. A journal is the start. If you find evidence of activity in an area, then stick with the area. Even if activity stops for a while,stick with it,does the activity come back? When? Stick with it more, has it been long enough you can call it seasonal? Document your evidence, don't show me a keen picture of a remote stick structure, show me pictures of it from several angles,document its surroundings,do this for every single one of them you find. Don't muck with it,unless you are taking surface samples from area's where the animal has likely physically touched it. Document every piece of evidence you find,where,when,how often,etc. Anything you think they may have touched recently(clam shells,sticks,food items,feces,etc) could potentially have evidence on it,don't handle it,bag it,even if you do not have the means to test it,bag it anyway, someone else may come along with the means. A long term study, in a selected area,proving repeated observations, eliminating possible other culprits over time,is as good as finding the actual specimen. Your repeated presence in the area will lead you to more clues,and over time my lead to what your looking for being more familiar with you, and less wary of you being there.

I have seen examples of people doing things similar to this,and sometimes I don't even think they realize how well they are actually doing. Many of you out there have potential activity very close to you,take advantage of that. I know I am certainly repeating what many of you already think,probably even posting whats already been posted a thousand times,but journals,documenting,and evidence collecting on the small scale,will solve this on the long scale. I don't care how good of a picture you take, there will be people out there who will pick it apart,and say its a hoax,no matter how real it is. But documented, repeated,behavior patterns,backed up with the small pieces of evidence will add up to a solid case over time, and a three week expatiation or week long camping trip at a hot spot probably wont.

[Guest parnassus]

Actually since peer review has apparently been corrupted it's kind of a moot point. Sure it's still the best system we have, but it's no longer the icon it once was. It would appear we're moving into a new paradiam of scientific verification so chasing the old one is like asking women to get back in the kitchen....kinda pointless.

gee, I hadn't realized peer review was on the way out. Tell us more about how this is gonna work...are we going back to traveling shows? Fox News? flipping coins?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

It would appear we're moving into a new paradiam of scientific verification so chasing the old one is like asking women to get back in the kitchen....kinda pointless.

The only way us guys will ever see that again is by watching "Leave It To Beaver" Reruns.

Tim

[southernyahoo]

I think there are a lot of good idea's here. I can even think of a few examples of amateurs out there who are approaching it all from a more scientific approach than they may even realize. Often I read of "hotspots" and then it seems you get a rush of people running off trying to find the holy grail. Then you have the slow and steady people,who don't hop all over the place, chasing. Short term expatiation's and the like are mostly a waste of time.I think it will one of the fringe you tube types who will crack this, and the people who will most likely speak out the hardest against them will be many of the big foot people themselves. A long term study does not have to involve huge grant money or anything like that. A long term study means sticking to your guns,and working the same area for as long as it takes. It involves discipline, and documentation. A journal is the start. If you find evidence of activity in an area, then stick with the area. Even if activity stops for a while,stick with it,does the activity come back? When? Stick with it more, has it been long enough you can call it seasonal? Document your evidence, don't show me a keen picture of a remote stick structure, show me pictures of it from several angles,document its surroundings,do this for every single one of them you find. Don't muck with it,unless you are taking surface samples from area's where the animal has likely physically touched it. Document every piece of evidence you find,where,when,how often,etc. Anything you think they may have touched recently(clam shells,sticks,food items,feces,etc) could potentially have evidence on it,don't handle it,bag it,even if you do not have the means to test it,bag it anyway, someone else may come along with the means. A long term study, in a selected area,proving repeated observations, eliminating possible other culprits over time,is as good as finding the actual specimen. Your repeated presence in the area will lead you to more clues,and over time my lead to what your looking for being more familiar with you, and less wary of you being there.

I have seen examples of people doing things similar to this,and sometimes I don't even think they realize how well they are actually doing. Many of you out there have potential activity very close to you,take advantage of that. I know I am certainly repeating what many of you already think,probably even posting whats already been posted a thousand times,but journals,documenting,and evidence collecting on the small scale,will solve this on the long scale. I don't care how good of a picture you take, there will be people out there who will pick it apart,and say its a hoax,no matter how real it is. But documented, repeated,behavior patterns,backed up with the small pieces of evidence will add up to a solid case over time, and a three week expatiation or week long camping trip at a hot spot probably wont.

Good points JohnC. on picking up on the smaller details. This also helps when you do try other spots, like in areas of repeated and or recent sightings, certain things will stand out to you that may not to others, much like how a tracker stays on the the trail of his quary.

[Guest]

gee, I hadn't realized peer review was on the way out. Tell us more about how this is gonna work...are we going back to traveling shows? Fox News? flipping coins?

Please see links in the OP. It's one of the premises of this thread, altho not the main subject.

[Guest]

Its the small things that add up,proving something scientifically takes a lot of detailed,boring,unexciting work to pay off,you have to establish repetitive patterns,and rule out any other possibility till you are left with nothing but the unknown,with sufficient repeated detail to say, ok,I don't know what it is,but I can prove what it does.

x=bigfoot

I know of one guy who is actually doing this to a degree,and has plenty to work with,I don't know if he is keeping a painstakingly detailed journal,but if he is,he is well on the right track.,Heck, a few of the u tubers are to.

[Guest]

Sas .. . again, that is a circular argument..

I don't recall the poster; but in this situation an approach of the beginning national Geo or any journal in infancy is valid.

I do not expect to jump into the specialized peer-review and disciplines that are pinnacle, perhaps we can in the interim...blah blah...same argument I have made...analyze thoughfully and work from there...

At this stage a "peer-review" of peers (back to that broad Bf society hopefully b/c it has something going for it attracts more than prize hunter types) wrt to BF as we understand now and hope to in the future (albeit we might get it wrong in some respects) is valid, but my opinion...so I won't post again re: this topic.

I think for those with plenty of time in the field, they would be confident they could demonstrate "BF activity" w/o proving BF exists w/n a community who accept that stipulation as a foundation for working hypothesis, that ultimately will help discover the truth....and then we can discard what we got wrong..

so, anyway

to Grayjay I see you are trying to move thread to related disciplines we can draw on? and in that arena right now my focus is sound, I know that is very tough route...but it is the original data I possess yet to really see what I can get out of...so..LOL I might have more to add later!

thanks again.. I made mistake as new member of posting on a few the threads I found interesting, only to see the conversations move quickly and in fact, I have lost a few! So, thanks for tolerating intermittent and/or off topic posts!

[Guest Jodie]

I don't know about what other people do, I do borrow from other fields on anything I think might apply to these creatures. I don't get enough activity in my area to verify, or even test, some of the theories I have about the critters. As someone else said, it would take an ongoing, long term commitment to an active hot spot to really put some of these cross pollinated theories to the test. If that situation exists, we aren't hearing about it here, not to say it isn't happening somewhere. I don't think the peer review process is on it's way out, as the article suggests, but I do think it highlights some ongoing flaws with the system. Nothing is perfect, but right now that process is all we have, what would be the alternative?

[Guest]

I don't know how they're going to resolve the peer-review issues, I posted the rest of the info on it to illustrate it's got it's own problems and to rely on it as the final word outside of presenting a specimen is a goal, but not the only route to legitimacy. I hardly think BASF or Monsanto, Bayer ect....when working on new material go public by publishing. They work on things quietly and only present when mandatory, to protect their discoveries.

We have a golden opportunity to redirect and define the field of Bigfoot without the pitfalls of the current system. By doing so it's less likely non-credentialed researchers will be shut out once a body is acquired and firmly have our foot in the door when it happens. Apehumans idea of creating our own journal is brilliant and gives long term researchers a platform for their work. I would think it's dependent on us to drag Bigfoot into legitimacy as opposed to bemoaning the fact it isn't taken seriously.