dopelyrics Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Hello, Can an armchair researcher have any meaningful input in to the Bigfoot phenomenon? When I say that, I mean someone who has never spent any time in the forests of North America, but is vocal in their belief/disbelief in Bigfoot. Time after time I hear: "Have you ever been into the field?" when someone's video or audio or research is questioned by an open minded skeptic or, oftentimes, an ardent disbeliever. Is that a valid question to ask and is it relevant? My view is that you don't need to go int o the field to have an opinion on a video. But as someone who lives thousands of miles away from America, I realise that I am not best placed to make comments about the wildlife and forests of a country I don't live in. Those comments I do make are usually formed from articles/information I find on the internet. Does that matter? Any thoughts appreciated. Best regards, Lee Edited October 23, 2012 by dopelyrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) If you are a specialist in a field, say fingerprinting, then yes your opinion would be an intelligent opinion. If you have detailed familiarity with bone structure or gait or bird calls or tree species, then yes. If you know all about caves and their environments or coyotes and their lives, then yes. If you know about the digestive system or scat or teeth or whatnot, then yes. You can certainly educate yourself and hopefully talk intelligently on the subject. I actually didn't LEARN much from my four encounters besides scaring myself silly and being able to relate my experiences - everything else I've learned has been through reading sites like this and doing research. From my experiences, I learned that they whistle, wood knock, crash large objects in the forest, snap branches and are very, very good at hiding yet observing you. Could have learned that reading here in two minutes. It's just that you won't have that emotional surety and absolute knowledge that you are studying something that actually EXISTS until you KNOW by experience that there are two 700 lb beings hiding behind outbuildings 200 feet away from you that are interacting with you! Then it's real in a whole new way. Whole new ball game, then. Edited October 23, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 DL- yes, my study is in the field of advocacy and protection of endangered species. I am also a member of the National Resourses Defence Coucil and have been focusing drafting either regulation and or legislation for the protection of Hairy BF. My family had very close encounters with BF when I was a youngster, me to close earcounters, and that is what spurred my interesrt. Can't get out in the field because I also take care of my very disabled wife. Have learned alot about state policies over the years and how to approach commission boards and have been responsible for two Cal- Osha regulation adoptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Sure they/you can! I do both I'm outside fishing, camping, hiking and just exploring and commenting on what's brought up here. The "outdoor resume request" is just another form of "mines bigger than yours" and tells you everything you really need to know about the real motivation of the person presenting the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Sure you can. I think what most field researchers get upset with is the level of criticism with no "hey try this" or advice - it's called "constructive criticism". Or the "skeptic" proclaiming to have all the answers - when all the information has not been provided. Investigations take time, evaluating evidence takes time. Pictures on the internet are great and audio is awesome - but we should also take into account the personal experiences of those in the situation at the time. No, I am not saying you (or anyone else) has to believe everything your told - but we should be willing to take in the entirety of the situation when all of the information becomes available. Sometimes we are fed bits and pieces as an investigation is being conducted - some appreciate the inside look - others simply go on the attack - assuming they know more than those involved. Personally, I don't have to be called names more than once - for me to get the message. I'm not saying you do these things - I am simply responding to your question in general terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Everyone on this forum is an armchair researcher at least part of the time. Knowledge and experience can be gained in a number of ways. Studying the liturature on a topic gives a wider perspective, practical application can give a deeper perspective. It seems both are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JenJen of Oldstones Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Anyone can learn a lot online. I've learned a lot from reading sight reports and now I kind of have this mental database that I find myself drawing on to infer things about general Bigfoot behavior, what types of environments they're most likely to be seen in, the conditions that are most conducive to a sighting, what they eat, how they hunt, how they express themselves, communicate etc. I might never have known what a stick structure was, or recognize the significance of a twisted branch, without watching lots of videos and seeing pictures from all over the continent. I think the benefit of field research is that it would give one a baseline from which to measure their observations. For instance, I read lots of reports and posts and comments from people who say they've been hunting/camping/hiking for years, or grew up in the country, or have lived in this certain area for years and know what the local wildlife sounds like. Therefore, they are better able to pick out atypical sounds and maybe record them for study. Or someone who has extensive outdoors experience would be able to recognize when an area of well-trampled leaf litter or flattened grass or broken branches isn't likely to be from a feral pig or a bear or a deer. And, well, the more time you spend in Bigfoot's home (e.g. nature), the more attuned you might be to it. So I have no doubt that there are things one can get from field research that will give them the edge over an armchair researcher every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mandango Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I believe they can. Different life experiences and education background can add new insight and ideas to the field. I have two young children and my wife is pregnant with twins. Realistically speaking, I will not be out in the woods searching for the North American Great Ape. So I like to spent my time reading and collecting peer reviewed articles on zoology, forensics, medicine, and so on to maybe help create a base of known knowledge. It's not very sexy, but I think it's very important. Although my time on these forums has been short, from reading several threads I believe on of the largest obstacles BF research has to overcome is bias. Whether you believe or not, all the data needs to be collected and examined objectively. Does that make good popcorn threads? No. Good science? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) I don't see why you shouldn't come up with something interesting at home. I've researched many things meaningfully from my armchair and made a difference, from annoying the heck out of Google to helping out in certain important (in my opinion) legal cases to finding lost friends and relatives for people, to coming up with medical options when someone's doctors are clueless. 'From my armchair' or for the really important stuff, 'bed with a nice cup of tea' is exactly where I'm going to be researching Bigfoot. I like staring at data. Data in nice neat rows in a spreadsheet, not peeking at me from the treeline. It all depends on what you like. You aren't going to be much good at something if you don't like it. Some people like to go out into nature and see if they can get a real life encounter, smelling the scat, as it were. Personally, I'm not sure the chances of this city girl finding something genuinely new outweights the risk of her getting her head ripped off, but YMMV. Once you've seen a Bigfoot, there is no going back. You have fallen through the looking glass. Your world view is forever removed from that of your peers. If you already believed in Bigfoot, then you have the confirmation you need and it can be a good thing, but I think a lot of the trauma people suffer from seeing Bigfoot is the feeling that much of what they knew about the world turns out to be wrong. The effect of this cannot be overstated. I've never seen Bigfoot, and I'm a loner, and I saw something over a period of two years that is not supposed to exist. I saw it many times in the company of other people who saw it too. And it freaked me out big time. What's next, I'm thinking? Aliens? Its like the ground caves in beneath you. Anyway.. Some people like going through vast amounts of data looking for patterns, or finding connections that might have been missed or coming up with new hypotheses. These things need a certain state of mind so are all best done while you are nice and warm and safe, not being chased through the freezing cold wet soggy woods by a hairy ten foot hominin, so feel free to look for Bigfoot in whatever way best suits you. Edited October 23, 2012 by icicle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 What are we trying to figure out? Do field researchers have more verifiable evidence of Bigfoot's existence than armchair researchers? No. Keep on truckin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Spoken like a true arm chair scofftic Drew, thanks for the input, and keep on truckin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Good topic, DL. From my perch here in eastern Nebraska, upright hominid reports are pretty scarce. I'm still intrigued by the subject, and so spend some of my leisure time aboard the BFF. I can't contribute first hand knowledge, per se, but trust me I'll be Johnny-on-the-spot for any sightings in my neck of the woods. And while no one making a report should be roasted, sometimes folks tend to bring it upon themselves. When Tracker is informed his videos showed precious little, and nothing like the intricate details he thought, he immediately would play the "are you a researcher?" card to anyone daring question his offerings. This was not helpful in his trying to convince anyone else of what he thought he detected in his videos. Edited October 23, 2012 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ellie811 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I believe both are just as important too. Much of what I know about BF's I have read in books or on sightings database or forums like this one . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Spoken like a true arm chair scofftic Drew, thanks for the input, and keep on truckin Is that supposed to be a slight? Is he wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I consider myself an armchair observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts