Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

[southernyahoo]

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).

I think what apehuman is speaking about is methods that produce observations and repeatable results. This allows prediction of results, and if the results are unique, not attributable to knowns, then it is a productive method that can lead to proof. Proof is simply a cogency of evidence that has , (after critical peer review) one logical and simplest explanation, which compels acceptance.

I don't think legitimacy is necessarily tied to credentials as much as it is the subject matter. There are some here who exibit the predisposition that no evidence pertaining to this subject is credible, ( and there's probably alot more of them) let alone definitive in anyway, so a reputable journal hinges on settling the question of whether something real is actually being studied. Note: This does not mean we have to have a body.

[Guest StankApe]

i don't see how you could possibly say that something is real without a body (or at least super awesome video evidence)...

Who is a credible researcher? Who funds this journal? What are their credentials? These are hard questions to answer when the majority of Footers are just people going into the woods looking for Bigfoot.

[Guest Jodie]

Well I don't think it matters about the "who", but probably has more to do with the "how". So far, no one agrees on how to get evidence that is repeatable and verifiable, maybe we need to work on that first.

[Guest slimwitless]

i don't see how you could possibly say that something is real without a body (or at least super awesome video evidence)...

Suppose a peer reviewed study was published confirming unknown hominid DNA in the forests of North America. Let's say it was a study of a drop of blood. No hairy flesh. No unusual hairs. No video or photographic evidence.

Would you consider it a significant discovery? Would it really be unreasonable to speculate on the origins of the blood?

[Guest StankApe]

Yeah i'm as interested as anyone about Ketchum's DNA paper. If the results point definitively to unknown hominid, we will all pretty much know that it proves Bigfoot. But scientifically it doesn't. It just proves an unknown hominid.... It wouldn't be enough evidence for a Journal to be created for Bigfoot either. Once you have DNA and a body then you can start gathering the data (and creating actual experts) to create said Journal.

You don't create the journal and then prove the critter later. If you do, what you really have is , as I stated above, just a magazine for Bigfoot enthusiasts. It's hard to be a serious scientific journal if all of the published material is just anecdotes and fuzzy pictures...

I hope Ketchum's paper turns out to be as advertised as it will kickstart the scientific world into gear on this subject and ,hopefully, put an end to all the suspicious characters that make up much of the Bigfoot community now.

[Guest slimwitless]

Oh, absolutely. I agree about creating a "journal". If it happens though, I think it should be called "Squatchin'".

[Guest]

i don't see how you could possibly say that something is real without a body (or at least super awesome video evidence)...

Who is a credible researcher? Who funds this journal? What are their credentials? These are hard questions to answer when the majority of Footers are just people going into the woods looking for Bigfoot.

Anyone can start up a magazine/journal if they have the cash. Why on earth would they need more credentials than a high credit limit on their American Express?

I think you are jumping ahead too far. There are no experts in bigfoot...that includes the credentialed folks you keep looking too. They equally have HAD NO EXPERIENCE in stalking, attempting to gather BF evidence, ect.....other creatures maybe but not specifically Bigfoot.

So that's why I keep saying, in fact it's one of the op premises in this thread that WE can define Bigfootery as a legitimate field of study. A few people keep passing off the ''authority'' to a collection of unknown yet''legitimate'' scientists. It's been obvious for at least the last ten yrs there aren't many takers. It's pretty much time to quit beating a dead horse and do things for ourselves, if indeed we're serious about bringing this into the mainstream.

For example in general telling someone the forty ways it can't be done isn't productive. Do it at your workplace in fact, and it usually doesn't work. This being a pro-bigfoot forum you would think it was the perfect place to brainstorm and see what could be done to help people who are researching be taken more seriously. To find ways to make some advances in the fieldwork, locate BF hotspots, work out critical habitat requirements.

[southernyahoo]

Yeah i'm as interested as anyone about Ketchum's DNA paper. If the results point definitively to unknown hominid, we will all pretty much know that it proves Bigfoot. But scientifically it doesn't. It just proves an unknown hominid....

That right there is enough to get past the percieved incredulty, and pave the way for legitamate / objective science which a reputable journal could be built around.

[Guest StankApe]

Oh, absolutely. I agree about creating a "journal". If it happens though, I think it should be called "Squatchin'".

HAHAHAHA!!!PLUSSED!

I'm going to work that into a signature somehow! very very nice ! "SQUATCHIN'" Ya know It gives me a very breezy beachside feeling for some reason. Like three surfers chilling next to their Woody Wagon while a squatch goes cruising buy waving at them!

[ShadowBorn]

I hope Ketchum's paper turns out to be as advertised as it will kickstart the scientific world into gear on this subject and ,hopefully, put an end to all the suspicious characters that make up much of the Bigfoot community now.

Who are the suspicious characters that make up much of the Bigfoot community now?No one has not even set a standard, Saying that this the creatures character.DNA is being turned in from different places and yes it is going to say that we have a living being living in our mists.

But no one has wrote down and taken the accounts of the many sightings and created a standard.No one has really sat down and agreed on what can be used to repeat a encounter.What sense is there in collecting DNA,when the journal needs behavioral traits.(sorry my spelling is off).One way of getting this is by repeated results and all agreeing that yes these creatures have these abilities,so far I see none of this.

Why should this money be funded in research?We are lucky that a few Scientist are getting on board .But are those few going to be enough to make a discovery of a living being that is maybe even living in our back yards?Repeated results with the people that count is what is going to make or break.maybe I am talking out of my (who knows what) but if people who have never met living in different states and are achieving results.well I hope that you get the idea.It is the creature that does have weakness and I am not saying to use this weakness for the death of but for research.

[Guest StankApe]

Who are the suspicious characters that make up much of the Bigfoot community now?No one has not even set a standard, Saying that this the creatures character.DNA is being turned in from different places and yes it is going to say that we have a living being living in our mists.

But no one has wrote down and taken the accounts of the many sightings and created a standard.No one has really sat down and agreed on what can be used to repeat a encounter.What sense is there in collecting DNA,when the journal needs behavioral traits.(sorry my spelling is off).One way of getting this is by repeated results and all agreeing that yes these creatures have these abilities,so far I see none of this.

Why should this money be funded in research?We are lucky that a few Scientist are getting on board .But are those few going to be enough to make a discovery of a living being that is maybe even living in our back yards?Repeated results with the people that count is what is going to make or break.maybe I am talking out of my (who knows what) but if people who have never met living in different states and are achieving results.well I hope that you get the idea.It is the creature that does have weakness and I am not saying to use this weakness for the death of but for research.

I am not going to name names (but most of you know who the suspicious folks in Footin are) there are many people who are motivated by $$$ more than the actual science/discovery part of it. Lot's of con men, hoaxers, truth stretchers...etc Though I think that most researchers and such are good honest people, the problem is that those who tend to exploit the idea of Bigfoot for their own ends tend to be the loudest.... it gives the entire community a bad name IMO.

[Guest slimwitless]

HAHAHAHA!!!PLUSSED!

I'm going to work that into a signature somehow! very very nice ! "SQUATCHIN'" Ya know It gives me a very breezy beachside feeling for some reason. Like three surfers chilling next to their Woody Wagon while a squatch goes cruising buy waving at them!

You might want to look here. I was bored.

[Guest StankApe]

Yeah I saw it! The poster insert is hilarious!

[Guest Jodie]

Well Julio, that is what I'm talking about. You have to set a standard for evidence collection that can some what rule out hoaxes and contamination.

As long as we have those resistant in being told the proper way to do things, it isn't going to happen(and there are many that resent this).

Let me share what I was told by someone about three years ago when I first naively suggested this on another forum, and I quote:

"We don't need no scientists tellin' us what ta do!" I mentally cued in the banjoes and just walked away.......dropped out for nearly a year before returning, I was so disgusted with the sense of futility of it all.

You would have to establish criteria for submissions to your Journal. I would not accept so called evidence without some kind of vetting process based on a standard.

I wouldn't be sharing hot spot info as long as Billy Joe and Bobby Wayne are out there trying to kill one to make a million dollars, as they mistakenly think they will.

[Guest]

This being a pro-bigfoot forum you would think it was the perfect place to brainstorm and see what could be done to help people who are researching be taken more seriously. To find ways to make some advances in the fieldwork, locate BF hotspots, work out critical habitat requirements.

Right! For years, I've been coming here and describing ways for bigfooters to mainstream their research. I've provided advice on proven field methods used to confirm the presence of other secretive and wide-ranging species, how to search for ancient remains, how to approach publication, etc.

It's quite simple: bigfoot becomes mainstream when bigfooters mainstream it.