clubbedfoot Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 a person who can't find something and has to look again.....
Guest Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Gold: You quoted (I believe) Darren's statement - but I have a question - there were no close quotes. Was this your closing statement in the post above: 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. Or was this in Darren's statement too.. I looked at Darren's statement and couldn't find it... But, that does not mean I couldn't miss it. Thanks.
Guest GoLd Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Hi Melissa, The "you people" comment, is my opinion of the MABRC, and their claim of being researchers. I was more or less pointing out that the reason DW and DO couldn't figure out Ed Smith after 4.5 years, with supposedly a *data base of info, was that they don't have any education, backround or experience in any relevent field, but that **Kulls does, therefore a few days vs 4.5 years. The diffence is obviously in the results; a professional investigator, took a few days to gather enough evidence to help crack the case. Versus non professionals, who as point of fact, helped to perpetuate and facilitate the hoax (unknowingly) for years, regardless of the fact that they were running thier own investigation. I honestly have no problem with the MABRC, or any group like them, I do truly appreciate the effort and hours people put into the field. But effort doesn't equal competance, if it did then we would surely have daisy in a box by now. However, what I do have a problem with, is that Ed Smith received credibility via his association with the MABRC, MABRC gets its credibility from the claim that they are researchers. This brings us back to the reason I posted this topic for discussion, what is the definition of the word "researcher". GoLd P.S. Agian, I have nothing agianst the MABRC, they are the example due to circumstance. Citations * The database that I created on Ed contained every thing he had ever told Randy and I, along with his posts, we did this to see if we could find discrepencies, and the stories did not change. From the open letter from D.W Lee to the bigfoot community**about Steve Kulls http://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/about/ GoLd
Guest Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Gold, First of all, thank you for the link to Steve Kulls - I have been friends with him for a number of years and we have worked with each other on a number of hoaxes within this community. You should probably go back to Steve's article - as Steve stated he could not take full credit for all the information he has discovered, and I am sure he would want this noted. There are other people working behind the scenes. I would hate for them to not be recognized for the years of hard work they put into just who Ed Smith is. Steve did not find Ed Smith based on a "Background Check" - the information came about after Ed Smith's facebook page was discovered by someone else - who can identify him/herself. Without some exact information it is impossible to run a background check on a name like "Ed Smith" - and I would bet Ed knew this. Maybe DW or DO should have approached those with a more extensive background in investigations - but hindsight is always 20/20 and they finally did. So, they do deserve some credit for finally deciding they needed help. You would be surprised how long it can take, even for people outside this community, to decide they need the help of an investigator... I know you meant no harm. But, every person involved deserves credit for this. I am sure Steve would agree. Those involved behind the scenes can identify themselves. I am not in the habit of disclosing names of people. But they deserve as much credit as Steve. All did a fantastic job. Edited January 17, 2013 by Melissa
Guest GoLd Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 Hi Melissa, I certainly meant no disrespect, or disregard to anyone who helped to finally uncover the truth. I only commented on the names that were put forth. To those nameless and faceless few who did help to glean the truth, thank you. My company uses backround checks on all employees and some vendors, when I saw mention of financial, educational, property ownership and criminal historys, I assumed a backround check as this is the type of info you can get from a backround check. So my bad on the assumption (unfortunatley, I was an ass before the assumption, so the mistake cost me nothing). Although, I do stand by the statement that for the cost of a $40 backround check this could have been resolved much earlier and easier, and at the very least cast a heavy shadow of doubt on Ed Smith and his claims. I do appreciate your approach, I have no recollection of you making claims beyond what you have first hand knowledge of, you seem to be open and forth coming in your investigations and I don't recall you having put your name behind anyone else's without proof. Now if only the rest of the BF world would follow that example, no more effort would need be wasted in the search for credibility. GoLd
Guest Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 You didn't disrespect me. I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding on the part of anyone who came along later. Gold, I do think Steve performed some sort of background check - but that could only happen after we had Ed's full name (at a minimum) but ideally more information is good. He has been pretty good at protecting who he is - but not perfect. But, once his information was found online - it was over. Steve did more work and found other bits and pieces. But, it was the Facebook page that lead to Ed Smith. You are absolutely right. Background checks are very helpful and other researchers in this should not feel bad for approaching those within our community who have this knowledge. It's nothing to be ashamed of and may help keep the drama to a minimum. But - there is information within those background checks that can not be made public. Any information that is not public record - can get you into serious trouble if you disclose it. Facebook pages - Websites - business listings - all public information. In many states even a criminal record is public information and can be accessed online -- if you have the right information first. The work done for 2 years prior to all this - was exceptional - and those involved in that should be proud. They had very little information to start with - but what they ended with was simply amazing. So, my hats off to this person and he knows who he is. Steve also does excellent work - and I am not trying to take anything away from him - at all. I am grateful we have people like this in our community. I don't know if my approach is any better than anyone elses. I simply do my best and hope it's good enough. But, thank you for your kind words. In this situation though - I was a spectator... Sometimes, it's nice to just sit back and watch others do extraordinary work.
Guest Posted January 18, 2013 Posted January 18, 2013 (edited) I don't suppose the stories of the high tech investment with no results was any kind of dead give-away after nearly 5 years? Things that make you go hummmm IMO. Edited January 18, 2013 by CTfoot
Guest Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 (edited) 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. By that reasoning, no research is even possible until a thing is "proven" (rendering a conclusion that can be "falsified"). Which renders the act of research moot. Look it's real simple. Here is the definition of the word, straight from the dictionary: Noun The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions. Verb Investigate systematically. Synonyms noun. investigation - exploration - search - study - inquiry verb. explore - investigate - search - study - inquire https://www.google.c...lient=firefox-a 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. And there you are again conflating "evidence" with "proof". There is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis of an unidentified NA primate. (Eyewitness accounts, tracks, forensically typed hairs, etc). If that does not rise to the standard you require for "proof", that is another argument entirely. 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). Not so, Dr Meldrum, Dr Howe, Officer Chillcutt, et al have been studying biometric indicators that demonstrate that certain cast tracks are legitimate sign left by a living creature's actual foot. You cannot dismiss those observations. The current trend is to cast these prints destroying the one possible way of collecting the biological evidence that might be present. But preserving dermals, ligament marks, etc, which are also biological evidence. Edited January 19, 2013 by Mulder
steenburg Posted January 19, 2013 Posted January 19, 2013 For me the term researcher applies when the man or woman 'Sticks to the facts and never deviates from the facts'. Also a researcher must be willing to face the possibility that the subject may be nothing more than folklore, no matter how much on a religion like conviction they may personally have. This willingness to face the possibility that you may be wrong is what separates a true researcher from a advocate. Thomas Steenburg
Guest Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 For me the term researcher applies when the man or woman 'Sticks to the facts and never deviates from the facts'. Also a researcher must be willing to face the possibility that the subject may be nothing more than folklore, no matter how much on a religion like conviction they may personally have. This willingness to face the possibility that you may be wrong is what separates a true researcher from a advocate. Thomas Steenburg Fantastic definition. I believe it, and this means there are few researchers in this area, certainly not Dr. Ketchum.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 For me the term researcher applies when the man or woman 'Sticks to the facts and never deviates from the facts'. Also a researcher must be willing to face the possibility that the subject may be nothing more than folklore, no matter how much on a religion like conviction they may personally have. This willingness to face the possibility that you may be wrong is what separates a true researcher from a advocate. Thomas Steenburg I plussed ya!~ But that means nothing compared to the boost in FAITH you have given me about researchers in this subject, I have all but given up. Tim ~
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Field researchers aren't the only researchers
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 20, 2013 Posted January 20, 2013 Field researchers aren't the only researchers No one said anything about field researchers ~ ? Tim
Guest Posted January 21, 2013 Posted January 21, 2013 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 I'd add Stan Courtney, Rick Nolls, and a few others of that caliber to the list of field researchers. Bill Munns certainly qualifies as a PGF researcher.
Recommended Posts