Researchers In The Field

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Me

[spacemonkeymafia]

I do it for my own intrest. I have no desire to prove anything to anyone.

[steenburg]

I have a problem with some of the terminology used.  I have preconceptions of what I would consider a researcher from my early years in school, and then honed over decades.  What, exactly is a "researcher?"  Could a "hunter" be a researcher, or just an interested hunter?  If some go on extended recons in the field, is that a researcher?  If some also do a lot of reading and analyzing narratives, does that also contribute to the title of researcher?  So.  What is a bigfoot researcher?

 

I also have a problem with the term, Habituator.  A long-term witness?  How long?  What's the criteria to be a "habituator?"  How long is a long term witness?  How many events of interaction, and what level of interaction or closeness are required to cross into the habituator realm?

 

I have a problem understanding exactly what is to be considered "evidence?"  We hang people in this country based on eyewitness evidence.  So why are eyewitnesses automatically discounted in the field of large relict species?  Observation is 99% of science.  What constitutes replication of experimentation?  Does that too, also have to be observed?  

 

I no longer seem to have an understanding of what "science" is, as I've seen applications here that I was taught were NOT science.  Duplication of an experiment, or duplicate observation is supposed to be at least tried before dismissal.  Otherwise, science could not advance, and everything would be a postulation.  For someone to dismiss observations without them getting off their sorry ***es and doing their own work, is not skepticism - it's a retarded laziness.

 

When some observers see something at a distance, it's entirely reasonable to allow for the possibility of mis-identification.  But to dismiss narratives from every historical period, from almost every populated area of earth, from almost every culture on earth, is to be one lazy, disingenuous, willfully contrary, narrow-minded, inexperienced, incapable human imposter.

 

It's almost like they're jealous that others have either put in the work and have seen these critters, or that some of us, who just happened to be doing work in a very remote area just ran into one.

 

But that's not our fault.  Maybe the fact that you haven't either seen one, or interacted to some degree with one or more, maybe it's your fault.  Others who haven't had personal sightings, but through the preponderance of evidence allow for the existence of these critters - yours is not so much a matter of faith - but a matter of acknowledgement.

 

I've never seen the Eiffel Tower.  I'm pretty sure it's there, but I'd be one simple-minded jacka** if I denied its existence until someone either brought it into my range of vision, or somehow, by accident - I actually saw it myself - from where I'm sitting.  I have it on good report that there were two huge Twin Towers in New York.  They're not there now, so I can't personally verify that they existed.  So what stance do I take?  Deny they existed?  Deny the photographic evidence?  Deny the thousands of narratives that they existed?

 

Just how dumb would that be?

 

I'd thought I'd put my two cents worth here. In my opinion a Researcher is a person seeking evidence or an answer to an ongoing mystery while at the same time realizing he or she could turn out in the end to be totally wrong. In other words what they are seeking an answer to could turn out to be, mythology and folklore. I personally don't think that, as far as the Sasquatch question go's, but I accept the possibility that it may be so. If one does research with a closed mind one way or the other then that person is more of a advocate, rather than a true researcher. Like a religious leader trying to push a faith, rather than someone seeking an answer to a ongoing mystery.

 

Thomas Steenburg

[Twist]

 Well put Steenburg.  

[MIB]

I'll disagree with at least part of that.    It is possible for someone who has seen one to continue to do research.   (Hint hint wink wink ... y' know, like me?)   Being openminded about existence after such an experience is entirely disingenuous unless you truly doubt your own veracity.   If you have that problem ... go see a shrink, you have bigger issues than bigfoot.

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

A researcher is one who can use inductive and deductive researcher along with math, laboratory and field work backed up by and a body of established wisdom and knowledge to create a thesis that can be proved or disproved that contributes further to said body of knowledge.

 

I'm not a researcher BTW.

 

The assumption is that there is something like that "here".

 

That was my thesis.

 

Now I'm at my anti thesis. 

[Kiwakwe]

I'm looking. Whether I find or not, I've never felt a moment to be wasted while out in the field.

[Twist]

I feel the same Kiw, first and foremost I go camping, secondly I keep my eyes open and look for signs.  Worst case I have a great camping trip and come up empty handed, best case I see something that reinforces my search for more information.  

[FarArcher]

Every day in the field is successful, whether you find something you are looking for - or not.

[TD-40]

I go into remote places fishing and I always take a pocket HD camera with me. I also float some rivers and mount a Plotwatcher camera to a tree and record for 30 days in the area where I saw a footprint, then I get to go in later and retrieve it and view the footage hoping to get something interesting. That's about the most "research" I can do for now.