Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) I prefer to call them bigfoot investigators since something must be there before research can be done. What they are investigating are indications of the presence of a presumed creature with anecdotal accounts far outnumbering any sign......it should be the other way around actually. Also, hunting something and investigating something are two different things, investigation by protocols is based on peer review that the methods produce results. When you really get right down to it what you are dealing with are bigfoot enthusiasts, as Ray said, hunting for bigfoot. Never let a self proclaimed researcher try to tell you about bigfoot if you are witness, you likely know more than they ever will. Edited January 12, 2013 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hi CTfoot, I prefer to call them bigfoot investigators since something must be there before research can be done. What they are investigating are indications of the presence of a presumed creature with anecdotal accounts far outnumbering any sign......it should be the other way around actually. Also, hunting something and investigating something are two different things, investigation by protocols is based on peer review that the methods produce results. When you really get right down to it what you are dealing with are bigfoot enthusiasts, as Ray said, hunting for bigfoot. Never let a self proclaimed researcher try to tell you about bigfoot if you are witness, you likely know more than they ever will. See that's the rub, I have never seen a Bigfoot, I do find it to be a statistical improbability that all witnesses are mistaken or liars. If a single witness has correctly identified what they saw, then bigfoot as a species exists. So how does someone who romanticizes the idea of bigfoot, like myself, diseminate who to find credible and who to ignore. I am directly trying to get people to answer the question what is the definition of a researcher, my choices are Drs. Meldrum, Hadj-Chihk, Sarmiento, Krantz et al. And I wholeheartedly agree with both RayG and yourself, most are simply enthusiasts. Now if we can come to a community consensus, then a standard will be set, and the claims of enthusiasts won't be confused with those who follow the protocols of researchers. GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 By the results they produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 By the results they produce. Ok so your definition is based on results, and since bigfoot remains unproven to science, then by your definition there are only enthusiasts and no researchers? GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Yes Kite-Squatch, I already said that the definition is the noun to research, you seemed to miss the rest of the definition. The reason I posted this query is because so many claim to be researchers but few actually fit the definition Calling oneself a researcher seems to offer a certian level of credibility, as well as a defense against criticism. My point is that I'm hoping for a discusion that will identify what is a legitimate researcher and what isn't, as an example; most websites dedicated to the subject of bigfoot have claims to being a research group, but most are self appointed and do not adhere to the definition. Perhaps the answer is, until you are proven to be a hoaxer then you are a researcher, which seems to be the case most of the time. GoLd Some researchers bring more to the table than others, but I refuse to discredit someone as being engaged in legitimate research based merely on the lack of some Alphabet Soup after their name. Ok so your definition is based on results, and since bigfoot remains unproven to science, then by your definition there are only enthusiasts and no researchers? GoLd By that definition NO one is a legitimate researcher as ALL research has at one point or another either been into unproven hypotheses/phenomena or has in some ways not panned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Ok so your definition is based on results, and since bigfoot remains unproven to science, then by your definition there are only enthusiasts and no researchers? GoLd Yes, that is where bigfootery is at now, the first person to produce viable biological evidence has moved bigfootery into the realm of research. By that definition NO one is a legitimate researcher as ALL research has at one point or another either been into unproven hypotheses/phenomena or has in some ways not panned out. That is correct as far as how I understand it, Mulder, I would say there are some fine investigators out there but they are the minority. Bipedalist is correct, a research plan and funding is what is really needed. Even the good investigators are amateurs with limited time and money to devote to the hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hi Mulder, Some researchers bring more to the table than others, but I refuse to discredit someone as being engaged in legitimate research based merely on the lack of some Alphabet Soup after their name. Glad you decided to drop in on the discusion, so what is your definition of a researcher? I chose mostly Phd's because they are experts in pertinant fields, and are trained to follow accepted scientific protocols. This fits my definition of what a researcher is. I don't discredit anyone for lack of education, and I don't hold a masters or doctoral degree, I will hold myself to the same standard as anyone else. So if I accidentally prove the existance of bigfoot, I will call myself an enthusiast and not a researcher. GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) A researcher does not have to be a PhD, they just have to be effective and competent in using proven protocols for investigation. If you hit a sasquatch accidentally with your truck, you are an enthusiast that got lucky. If you go out ever spare moment, applying appropriate investigative techniques, and discover sasquatch you will be the first genuine bigfoot researcher. Edited January 12, 2013 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Mulder, I do think that if bigfoot is proven to exist, the most likely scenario is that it will be uncovered by enthusiasts and then confirmed by researchers (Phd's). My point about the definition is that you can't expect the same level of professionalism from those without a professional training, be it academic or otherwise. I love to cook and I can do a few things really well but I can't run a restaurant, I like to build things out of wood but I wouldn't try and build a house, and the BFRO (insert any group name here) may "discover" bigfoot but it won't be accepted as fact until the academics have had time to research it. GoLd Edited January 12, 2013 by GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 That's probably a good way to look at it; investigation leads to discovery which leads to research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Hi RRS, I like to think I have a healthy amount of respect for pretty much every person out there, which of course includes skeptics. But since you feel that I am remiss in not acknowledging the skeptics, the next time I'm on a skeptics forum, I'll be sure to thank them for all the time and effort they invest in disbelief GoLd LOL I ain't saying you have any sort of Remiss, I was just tossing in my two cents about who keeps this thing alive, But I will say thank you for the future offer. Tim And for anyone who thinks I was taking a shot at Bipedalist a few posts up, well sure I was, it wouldn't be much fun here if I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I certainly TRY to do research, as in collect information in the field, library and internet, and try to learn from it, but I'm not a scientist or biologist or anyone with specialized training. I am more properly a multi-encounter witness who is trying to learn all she can. However, that's a mouthful and "researcher" is faster to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 12, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 12, 2013 And for anyone who thinks I was taking a shot at Bipedalist a few posts up, well sure I was, it wouldn't be much fun here if I didn't. Hey, for you a plus one, for somebody else I might take that smiley of yours and jam it where the sun don't shine would have been my more likely response. When somebody else sees a Sasquatch at six feet under near perfect dark adaptation and night conditions then I'll take them seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Hey, for you a plus one, for somebody else I might take that smiley of yours and jam it where the sun don't shine would have been my more likely response. When somebody else sees a Sasquatch at six feet under near perfect dark adaptation and night conditions then I'll take them seriously. Lol Hey! I was in Walmart the other day and had a few sightings of some pretty strange looking bipeds, can't say for sure they were BF, but they were big and hairy, if I go back to check would that make me a Researcher or an Enthusiast. Edited January 12, 2013 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) A researcher does not have to be a PhD, they just have to be effective and competent in using proven protocols for investigation. If you hit a sasquatch accidentally with your truck, you are an enthusiast that got lucky. If you go out ever spare moment, applying appropriate investigative techniques, and discover sasquatch you will be the first genuine bigfoot researcher. Here's where our opinion differs CTfoot, I believe that you can research an unknown. The God particle, quarks, anti matter are all accepted forms of research, while none have been unequivically proven to exist (perhaps bipedalist can correct me if I'm incorrect). I think this is where the scientific community, for the most part, fails at objectivity concerning this subject. Personally, I think it makes the efforts of people like Meldrum and Krantz more commendable, for they know how they will be received by their peers for their efforts and yet they continue. Where as, no one has ever seen a quark, yet Nobel prizes have been awarded for work on the theory. I certainly TRY to do research, as in collect information in the field, library and internet, and try to learn from it, but I'm not a scientist or biologist or anyone with specialized training. I am more properly a multi-encounter witness who is trying to learn all she can. However, that's a mouthful and "researcher" is faster to say. Hi Madison, Please don't think that I am trying to belittle the efforts of people like yourself, I'm not. I am saying that effort without protocols and due diligence, does not entitle anyone to a title which affords more credibility than the average layman. Agian, I love to cook but I'm not a chef, I like to build things but I'm not a carpenter. I think that there are people who feel that effort equals credibility, and there are many who would agree, I am not one of them. GoLd Edited January 12, 2013 by GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts