Definition Of The Term Researcher

[bipedalist]

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.

How about inviting them to your house for supper and find out...... bring Going for the Gold with you while you are at it..... you two seem to have all the answers. Troll somebody else in other words.

[Guest]

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.

GoLd

But there was mathematical evidence to suggest that those particles were there, hence the reason for the pursuit. Unfortunately the prints, hair, and other rare bit of biological evidence hasn't proven so far to be a particularly strong indication that sasquatch is the culprit. You can't fake the esoteric math involved in finding interdimensional particles but you can surely misinterpret it, hence the reason the Higgs Boson hasn't been declared statistically proven, but it's close. You don't have to see bigfoot to prove it exists, you just need good biological evidence that can provide DNA evidence.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

How about inviting them to your house for supper and find out...... bring Going for the Gold with you while you are at it..... you two seem to have all the answers. Troll somebody else in other words.

That's my Que too twenty three ski doo ~

[Guest GoLd]

But there was mathematical evidence to suggest that those particles were there, hence the reason for the pursuit. Unfortunately the prints, hair, and other rare bit of biological evidence hasn't proven so far to be a particularly strong indication that sasquatch is the culprit. You can't fake the esoteric math involved in finding interdimensional particles but you can surely misinterpret it, hence the reason the Higgs Boson hasn't been declared statistically proven, but it's close. You don't have to see bigfoot to prove it exists, you just need good biological evidence that can provide DNA evidence.

I too am a fan of statistical probabilty, throughout HSS 200,000 year existance we have lived besides no less than 6 relatives from the Genus Homo, and those are just the relatives we are aware of. I find it to be improbable that for the first time in history of Genus Homo we are alone, Homo Floresiensis 12,000 ybp and Homo Neanderthalensis 10,000 ybp being the last of those discovered.

Which means that for a consensus 95% of the existance of our liniage we were not the only representitive of the Genus Homo, so what is the statistical probability that we are not as alone as mainstream science would have us believe. I don't know the answer, but my feeling is that it is much more probable statistically, that we remain a part of a family Genus as opposed to being the lone living representitive. More probable than the accepted 0% that is.

How about inviting them to your house for supper and find out...... bring Going for the Gold with you while you are at it..... you two seem to have all the answers. Troll somebody else in other words.

Hi Bipedalist,

Am I the Gold you are reffering to in this statement? If so I have no answers, and in all honesty I'm still trying to figure out what are the right questions.

GoLd

Edited January 13, 2013 by GoLd

[Guest]

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.

I don't think you understood my point. By your proposed definition, scientific research is impossible in any field whatsoever (not just BF research), because every field has had dead ends and false starts.

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

GoLd, you're inappropriately conflating the act of conducting research with the act of making a finding or discovery.

I'll give you another example:

Thomas Edison spent years trying different formulas for light-bulb filaments before he found one that worked.

By the proposed definition you offer (only those who achieve results are researchers) Edison only became a "researcher" when he found the answer.

Any person engaged in the systematic, methodical collection of data on any given topic is in fact a researcher (one who conducts research), even if their findings are negative or even if they never publish a finding. The act and the result are separate things.

[Guest]

I don't think you understood my point. By your proposed definition, scientific research is impossible in any field whatsoever (not just BF research), because every field has had dead ends and false starts.

No, I think it is the other way around in that I'm trying to distinguish the correct use of the word research. Once you have that properly defined it determines what you are actually doing when you attempt to collect evidence. In the case for most "research" there is concrete evidence to indicate what direction to go in, in pusuit of the proving falsifiability.

As far as bigfootery is concerned there is no evidence that concretely dictates that what you are pursuing is an unidentified NA primate. That hypothesis has been out there for over 45 years with nothing definitive gleaned. It's either time to re-evaluate the hypothesis or the methods of investigation.

I think this is where most forum members misunderstand the skeptic stance regarding the evidence/proof theme that keeps popping up in various threads. If I went out and found prints tomorrow in my backyard, depending on what they looked like and several other circumstances that would have to be right, I might assume they were sasquatch but it would be my hypothesis only. Others might agree with me, but I would not consider my prints evidence or proof of anything because there is no way to prove who made them without concrete biological evidence (skin cells, hair, etc. that would be in the print). The current trend is to cast these prints destroying the one possible way of collecting the biological evidence that might be present.

Edited January 13, 2013 by CTfoot

[Guest GoLd]

I'll give you another example:

Thomas Edison spent years trying different formulas for light-bulb filaments before he found one that worked.

By the proposed definition you offer (only those who achieve results are researchers) Edison only became a "researcher" when he found the answer.

Any person engaged in the systematic, methodical collection of data on any given topic is in fact a researcher (one who conducts research), even if their findings are negative or even if they never publish a finding. The act and the result are separate things.

Hi Mulder,

Actually, I am in total agreement with you. The difference is, is that I don't think that wandering the woods in the hopes of finding a bigfoot makes it research. The way that most people are doing their "research" is really just hunting, Finding Bigfoot being the best example.

Primatologists do not operate in the same way as bigfoot researchers, the Bili ape discovery being the newest and yet still controversial, and that took a five year embedded study.

Edison is an excellant example of a non academic researching in a professional manner, and he did in fact follow accepted scientific protocols as well as protocols that he himself established in order to eliminate unusable filaments and enhance his chances of finding ones that had the best chance of success, as well as various gases, tube shapes, wattage and all manner of variation until he found a stable and repeatable combination.

Are you willing to put people like Matt Moneymaker, Todd Standing, Rick Dyer, the MABRC and many other enthusiasts in the same catagory as an Edison? I'm not, but I would put Meldrum, Sarmiento, Krantz among others in that catagory, for the simple fact that they follow standards established by their disciplines.

Or even better, lets compare all bigfoot enthusiasts to Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey niether of whom had a formal education in the discipline of primatology, but both have helped to define it. So who would you put in that group?

GoLd

Edited January 13, 2013 by GoLd

[Guest]

Excellent thread topic, GoLd. I really enjoy these threads where we attempt to create a clearer definition for everything Sasquatch. In my opinion, it is our responsibility (because nobody else is doing it) to at least try and come to a consensus on Sasquatch, which is what we are doing, and why I love Bigfoot Forums.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Mounty

[Guest GoLd]

Thanks Mounty,

I am glad to be participating in a, hopefully, benificial way, and as a bonus I am thoroughly enjoying the discussions.

GoLd

Edited January 13, 2013 by GoLd

[Guest]

In my opinion, I'm not a fan of the "arm-chair researcher" (never goes out in the field) calling themselves a researchers, however I do believe it is important for people to read, watch and think as much as they can about Bigfoot, and this can be accomplished without ever going outside.

A lot can be learned by knowing what others have done, and by critically thinking and piecing together the different theories and ideas to form a better understanding of Sasquatch. So I suppose that is research and the person doing it is a researcher.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Mounty

[Guest GoLd]

Here you go MABRC http://www.backgroundcheck.org/, it's called a backround check and costs $40. It took Steve Kulls a few days to find out the truth about Ed Smith using this or a similar website. In 4 1/2 years the MABRC and all their self appointed researcher expertise, couldn't. The reason is because they are not researchers, they have no training in anything pertinant, they follow no scientific method or protocols. Going out into the woods to look for Bigfoot, bears, squirrels or whatever is not research, if you have no training in a pertinant field and cannot employ scientific method then it's not research. It's called looking for something while out in the woods, and at best call it hunting.

I love the excuse/statement by Darkwing Duck, particularly this lil nugget;

"The MABRC as an organization, followed through this as an investigation, and hoped to see the light at the end of the tunnel. We insured that no one would give Ed an easy way out like during the summit meeting. People claim that we were protecting Ed from criticism during this time, yet we only were trying to eliminate any excuse Ed may have to back out of this conference meeting." He admits to protecting Ed smith from critique and scrutiny, and yet he still calls it a MABRC investigation, am I truly the only one who see's the problem here.

You people are enthusiasts and not researchers, they only researcher in this whole equation was Kulls and he had the answers in a few days.

GoLd

[Guest]

So someone contradicted themselves, well it was one of many times during the Daisy Debacle.

Edited January 19, 2013 by AaronD
to remove trolling/name calling

[indiefoot]

Most Bigfooters are as close to being a researcher as a pot hunter is to being an archeologist.JMO

[Sunflower]

No one in our group thought we were researchers and at the same time never put that label on anyone else too freely. We all knew what researchers did and it was NOT what we did.

We observed more than anything and we discussed it with the group when it happened. I do not think that there are many researchers in Bigfootdom, however, if so , then I wish they would come forward and tell us so.

Observers watch, then note, then discuss with their peers if possible. We have no scientific equipment, only if you accept that recorders and cameras count (which I don't). So observe away, but don't confuse that term with "researchers."

[Guest GoLd]

Hi Sunflower,

What group are you with?

GoLd