Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[Guest parnassus]

Goodness! THAT wasn't even implied....lol.

And I will also respectfully differ with your ever narrowing of the parameters you chose to rebut. Journals are published, printed and taken seriously without the strictly drawn lines you insist on defending. What was said was not all info by BF researchers is shared, for their own reasons, but would more likely be in a National Journal of Bigfoot. I'm fairly shocked you decided to ignore the ''National'' designation as that alone would turn bigfootery on it's ear.

For anyone not realizing the implications of that do a little research. It's a game changer.

A rose by any other name? I don't get it. I don't know where to research it. Plz tell us.

[Guest]

Well can you please be explicit about what you mean, then? If you don't explain, I'm left to interpret your intent.

As for the significance of "national," again, what do you mean? How does a "national" journal of bigfoot solve the problems of uncritical peer review? The BFF is already international, so how does going national somehow legitimize the endeavor?

I have long advocated that bigfoot researchers simply attempt to publish the work they think is publishable. We have numerous journals that would be suitable already, including Henry Gee sweeping off the welcome mat at Nature for crying out loud. If those researchers are not confident that their work is publishable in mainstream journals, then starting a journal of bigfoot is fine. But how that legitimizes the work is beyond me. Can you please explain how publishing a paper based on analysis of anecdotal bigfoot encounters in a journal that seeks to publish anecdotal bigfoot encounters advances the science of bigfoot beyond anecdotes?

If you stop for a second, you would see how bigfootery could be ''to a degree'' advanced until such time as a specimen is aquired autopsy done and flurry of papers written. A society formed including a self published journal, is the first step. I will for the purpose of this hypothisis assume that researchers will submit their findings in entirety, which, in turn will be critiqued and analyzed by other Bigfoot researchers, altho I wouldn't rule out by other interested people in the relevant fields chiming in. This has been done in the 1800's by almost every group you mentioned, it's just never been applied to the study of Bigfoot. Back in the day these organizations started with anocdotal material and built their specialties into what we see now in the present day.

The ''National'' designation which a political procedure in the US confers legitimacy while it may not outwardly imply it. Like a National Park, or National Historic Site. Now

this in effect to a limited degree lets our''powers that be'' acknowledge BF without endorsing it specifically. The criteria for the procedure is less stringent than the methods you endorse. The National designation then becomes a more formal platform to continue working towards more mainstream methods.

Equally the ''National'' designation supercedes all individual organizations as they either would have to be associated with it, or stand alone. This is the type of AROUND the present roadblocks that are available to us, interested in promoting Bigfootery, that can be taken advantage of. By keeping to the straight and narrow, while preferred may not serve us in the present circumstances so why not take advantage of what we can do?

Now....that said, I think reproducable science is the ultimate way to go, until then we're all acting hogtied by a few stumbling blocks. Sometimes a lateral move is the best avenue, until such time as things break and we can resume moving forward. I forgot to mention the first group garnering the ''national'' status will be the definative group. Rightly or Wrongly...it's just how things work.

sorry this took me a minute to write...grin...please excuse any typos and misspelling

[Guest mxav]

Be very careful, as several of the scientists you are impuning are forum members.

Its time someone said this, YOU are not a moderator, I haven\\\'t impugned anyone, I just dont give them blind following, is this forum bullying considered normal here? He uses this often, how does it not violate the rules?

Edited December 15, 2011 by mxav

[Guest Jodie]

Grayjay, who gives you the title "National"? How do you apply? Because I can see the journal being dubbed the "National Enquirer of Bigfoot" and I don't think that is going to much for the field.

[Guest]

Grayjay, who gives you the title "National"? How do you apply? Because I can see the journal being dubbed the "National Enquirer of Bigfoot" and I don't think that is going to much for the field.

Jodie the designation I'm refering to goes thru legislative channels. The criteria isn't science based but Bigfoot would qualify seeing how tourism and bigfoot go hand in hand in the PNW. It's very different than the national inquirer. Since no one has persued this avenue before it means the first to get it dominates the field of bigfootery by default.

[Guest Jodie]

In all seriousness, I can't see a congressman wanting to put something like sasquatch forward as a national anything and not be somewhat concerned about the general public's response. Where did you get the idea for this? I don't see it as having the impact that you think it would regardless, but who knows? They made the sasquatch a mascot for the Olympics in Canada.......

[Guest]

If you stop for a second, you would see how bigfootery could be ''to a degree'' advanced until such time as a specimen is aquired autopsy done and flurry of papers written.

No, "stopping for a second" isn't helping me see this in any greater clarity. Are you suggesting that bigfoot anecdotes in a journal (as opposed to in an online discussion forum) would contain proprietary information on proven methods to track a bigfoot such that a specimen could more readily be obtained? If we believe some of the things that have posted on the BFF of late, then bigfoots have been shot and potential evidence obtained on at least two occasions. Is it better shot placement that will be the subject of this journal? Apparently, we already know how to track them and get close enough to potentially collect a specimen. Of course, any such papers would be moot if a snow plow tags one tonight . . .

This has been done in the 1800's by almost every group you mentioned, it's just never been applied to the study of Bigfoot. Back in the day these organizations started with anocdotal material and built their specialties into what we see now in the present day.

No, back in the day, those organizations were devoted almost exclusively to collecting specimens and describing them in the literature. Catesby, Wilson, Audubon, Darwin, Wallace, Say, Nuttal, Gray, Ord - those guys were all collectors. They also wrote and illustrated some great stuff on the natural history of organisms, but the specimens came first. Behavioral observations of those creatures in the wild didn't really get going until Margaret Morse Nice started really watching what the Song Sparrows were doing in her Ohio backyard in the 1920s.

The ''National'' designation which a political procedure in the US confers legitimacy while it may not outwardly imply it. Like a National Park, or National Historic Site.

You want a bigfoot journal to be a federal program? Now you've really lost me. For starters, isn't there a significant feeling among bigfooters that the US Government is secretly obstructionist to any advancement of bigfootery?

"Saskeptic, on 15 December 2011 - 04:06 PM, said: I have long advocated that bigfoot researchers simply attempt to publish the work they think is publishable. We have numerous journals that would be suitable already, including Henry Gee sweeping off the welcome mat at Nature for crying out loud."

Apparently not, if the rumors about the Ketchum study being rejected by Nature are true.

. . .

Typical Science BS.

The invitation for submission is not carte blanche acceptance of those submissions, as you know. Perhaps you're just spewing some "typical pseudoscience apologist BS" here . . .

Edited December 16, 2011 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

At the risk of being hammered here, I have to say I have not seen much "good science" when it comes to bigfoot investigation either. I have seen a lot of assumptions, hot spot chasing and the like. Call blasting? Pheromone chips?

Hanging shiny old cd's in tree's? The constant introduction of invasive technologies. Repeated mistakes. Lots and lots of armchair advice(I am very guilty of this), but I have not seen a lot of "good science" A lot of time can pass,building a lot of frustration, with the continued use of methods that are not working. We have seen lots of evidence of a intelligence here,yet we keep pursuing it like its a "dumb ape" We have evidence that there is communication and language involved, organizational skills, the ability to some of their own manipulation of events. What if all that is true? They communicate amongst themselves,they leave sign posts for each other,etc. Some of the evidence we see here everyday leads me to believe we are dealing with something(if it exists),much more complicated than a simple ape. Not to mention the petty propitiatory nature of many "researchers". All this without even getting into the definition of "good science", and that's hugely problematic in itself,and controversial. Now making an potential assumption of my own here, how much damage did these people in Texas do by taking a shotgun to one? I think there is some good science going on out there,and a good chance it will pan out to some good results, but I highly doubt it is going to come from one of these people capitalizing and attempting to profit from it all.

[Wheellug]

Just to bring up a slightly different view, regarding Yeti's, according to the US State Department no one is to shoot or kill a Yeti unless threatened. Would this not make the collection of a type specimen against regulation?

"Regulations Governing Mountain Climbing Expeditions in Nepal - Relating to Yeti"; UD-WW, 1454, , Box 252, Accession #64-9-0814, folder 5.1 Political Situation - General, File ended Dec 31, 1959; Records of the Agency for International Development; Record Group 286; National Archives.

[Guest]

Thanks Wheelug, and moving along this is for the folks who hold the opinion BF is more closely related to our Primate cousins.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020122313.htm

[Guest]

Its time someone said this, YOU are not a moderator, I haven\\\'t impugned anyone, I just dont give them blind following, is this forum bullying considered normal here? He uses this often, how does it not violate the rules?

I'm not "bullying" anyone. I'm simply pointing out that your posts are impunging without any evidence the reputations and integrity of a group of people, including some forum members, which IS a violation of the rules. I just gave you a chance to back away from your hostile and belittling stance towards them.

The invitation for submission is not carte blanche acceptance of those submissions, as you know. Perhaps you're just spewing some "typical pseudoscience apologist BS" here . . .

SSDD.

Wake when you pick a position to stick to.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Mulder

[ShadowBorn]

At the risk of being hammered here, I have to say I have not seen much "good science" when it comes to bigfoot investigation either. I have seen a lot of assumptions, hot spot chasing and the like. Call blasting? Pheromone chips?

Hanging shiny old cd's in tree's? The constant introduction of invasive technologies. Repeated mistakes. Lots and lots of armchair advice(I am very guilty of this), but I have not seen a lot of "good science" A lot of time can pass,building a lot of frustration, with the continued use of methods that are not working. We have seen lots of evidence of a intelligence here,yet we keep pursuing it like its a "dumb ape" We have evidence that there is communication and language involved, organizational skills, the ability to some of their own manipulation of events. What if all that is true? They communicate amongst themselves,they leave sign posts for each other,etc. Some of the evidence we see here everyday leads me to believe we are dealing with something(if it exists),much more complicated than a simple ape. Not to mention the petty propitiatory nature of many "researchers". All this without even getting into the definition of "good science", and that's hugely problematic in itself,and controversial. Now making an potential assumption of my own here, how much damage did these people in Texas do by taking a shotgun to one? I think there is some good science going on out there,and a good chance it will pan out to some good results, but I highly doubt it is going to come from one of these people capitalizing and attempting to profit from it all.

Now this is just my opinion and it does not mean much.But my take on good science is taking some thing and repeating it over and over.Whether it be in a lab or in the field you are able the theory of some ones else's work and repeat that same process and have a outcome that results in the same.The same can be with these creatures and that is if you have some thing that works that does show a predetermined result does that not show that you have determined an outcome? If you you are using methods that show no results then is that not fruitless.

If we are to use peer review then should we not use the that work and show results of that work.In others words where ever it takes us is where we should go until the end result is reach.Where all arguments will no longer be an issue and true results is all that is left.All aspects of this creature should be reached before we even start talking about peer review.Just my most humble opinion which does not amount to much .

[Guest]

guilty again of late return..and again the Saskeptic (as representative of naysayers) presents a circular argument..

if true well then, we would know nothing..

but perhaps try this view:

How will a body (i.e. specimen proof) on a table help us determine what data in the field is related to Sas's that we can't already determine?

A peer-review is just that ...review by peers. In this case one hope the pinnacle of BF research and perhaps a few related disciplines..but the truth, little public funding today. So, it's amateurs..and we can either push toward something better or continue to have good and bad data lost or found together..

so the difference is say the Legend book...there is no "peer" review... which is true of all BF stuff so far..

you can go to bigfootevidence.blogspot today and hear Meldrum "analyze" Jamie's tracks on the phone!

Gee! Can anyone call him and discuss such? He didn't acknowledge a DVD of video I fed-x'd, or any follow up emails (and yes, I said thank you in advance)...so, it appears unless one heavily self promotes there is not access to this kind of attention? It could just be me...

A deep editorial board of a mag-website/journal..and a "reviewed" body of work makes sense, without we are all at the mercy of these very few "go-to-to-get-validation-visibility" whatever few... Meldrums' infant Journal..no apparent peer review board (one skeptic maybe) so, maybe it would be hard to get volunteer critical review

but, for me personally...a DNA study would be a start.b/c my intent was always and still is to see end to our rash BF "research" and leave them alone, or get real professionals...if we can do neither then the alternative/compromise is at least deal with the BFBS and give the serious a shared forum and review...LOL

thank goodness it is Christmas.... I am feeling so charitable ..

p.s. to Julio..yes, repeatability.....and experimental design...and those can be applied in the field today, and was a good part of my program and why the "experiments" kept changing...take the data in the field and adjust...and so on...we could be so much further in understanding if we can come up with some way to deal with those bent on "discovery" who would disrupt/block/dismiss a good deal of work, etc rather than just contribute...it's this hang-up on discovery I think.....b/c those of that know they exist...know....we don't need to "prove" to discuss or evaluate each others methods/conclusions

also on BFF as that forum..not at all. A great forum, but not a review by peers, as we are for the most part anonymous and our C.V.'s not available...with an available pool of "reviewers" all that supporting "credibility" of reviewers is part of the process.

Edited December 18, 2011 by apehuman

[Guest Cervelo]

Its time someone said this, YOU are not a moderator, I haven\\\'t impugned anyone, I just dont give them blind following, is this forum bullying considered normal here? He uses this often, how does it not violate the rules?

It's so common I consider it white noise, I only notice when its absent... but it is a relief when you don't have to hear it!

[Guest StankApe]

I don't think some of you are grasping that without legitimate credited scientific peer review the journal would have no legitimacy... It just wouldn't. It would be like a Boy's Life for Bigfoot. That's what Saskeptic is on about when he talks about needing a body. If you have a body, it brings legit scientific study into play, and then you would have a legit journal. (yes only legit scientists can start a legit scientific journal anything else is just a speculative magazine for enthusiasts).