hiflier Posted May 2, 2016 Posted May 2, 2016 Hello All, The subject of Sasquatch reporting and the ethical treatment of the subject in general has always suffered from those who hoax and those who hide how some represent themselves to the public. The complaints of many who express the lack of credibility the subject holds for many scientists and science disciplines is indicative of what is broken within the community. In response to how the subject is viewed by mainstream could be turned around if there was a more cohesive and trusted body who would make up an oversight committee of sorts that might be able to help keep the subject on a narrower path whose main goal is to establish or re-establish some credibility to the topic. With so much in the way of report data and whatever physical evidence is available the committee could act as a media and scientific community liaison or group consisting of trusted known individuals to act as spokespersons on the subject. Does the Bigfoot Community need this kind of oversight group to gain a better reputation in the eyes of the public, the media, and in the realm of science? The Group could tap into all research groups, websites, and member to vet new as well as old events and issue "official" opinion or rulings that could help most everyone in the area of what is on the up and up and what is not. It could be a central dumping place for data which could then be researched and conclusions arrived at in order to get at the truth of things like Y-Tube videos, photos, and help weed out the hoaxes from the items that truly add to the phenomenon in a positive and scientific way. It would require input from all sources in an area of say a sighting to include BF researchers in the area, and maybe even forestry service and law enforcement as well as community leaders in towns and rural areas. It would take fighting off the stigma and eye-rolling in the beginning but most of that is due to ignorance. The committee would also do internal investigations into individuals who profess themselves to be "experts" already within the field to see if their own credibility holds up to scrutiny. Generally I think this idea will leave a sour taste in most and there will be reasons to shoot it down but everyone's input will be welcome and appreciated. As a last thought I think that the committee members whoever they turn out to be should be well compensated as theresult could be exactly what everyone would like to see happen- credibility in the eyes of the public, the media, and in science. Not to mention credibility among ourselves. Kind of like having our own Supreme Court.
Yuchi1 Posted May 2, 2016 Posted May 2, 2016 Justice Biscardi Justice Standing Justice Dyer Too many hoaxers, liars and hustlers have contaminated the current environment to the extent no mainstream types will dare venture near for fear of getting soiled with the same brush. IMO, the day someone comes in with a bag of bones, that aren't fossilized and cannot be explained as any known hominid is the day the bandwagon will start being loaded down.
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 2, 2016 Posted May 2, 2016 No. If you create an ethics board you've disqualified at the very least 85% of the contributing factions. Also what are you going do do about the downright silliness that isn't hoaxing but is more like "hey lets go out and visit our big invisible friends today." So have a strict code of ethics and who will you have left? John Green and Bob Gimlin? Those gentlemen are getting up here in age.
hiflier Posted May 2, 2016 Author Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) @ Yuchi1- agreed but I also think things cannot remain as they are either. @ Crowlogic- disqualifying the 85% is what is needed though. The 15% left after the housecleaning will be the new backbone of the subject. Many of the so-called "experts" will by necessity fall by the wayside. Being currently in the public eye or currently active in promoting the "biz" will not be a qualifier for making the cut. Time to get serious about things like authoritative research and funding. Edited May 2, 2016 by hiflier 1
hiflier Posted May 2, 2016 Author Posted May 2, 2016 (edited) Anyone who knows me well enough and what my MO is should pretty much know that I don't post threads lightly. Nor do I post them as a kneejerk reaction. Before starting a thread that is nearly always controversial I get my story straight and look at all angles as much as I'm able in order to promote an idea. The concept of having an ethics board came after much thought as well as hashing out what such an entity would be responsible for. After all, what good would having such a body be if it carried no weight and offered no benefit to the community it would serve if it wasn't respected and had no code of its own for its own. And what about what goes on in the field? How would having an oversight group affect field research? It depends on how satisfied everyone is with how organized or disorganized the field work is. There is much more to cover but the question of trust had to come first and so the point of creating an ethics board had to be addressed. Besides, most of the ones that like the current dog and pony show are mostly in it for personal gain as opposed to getting proof of existence. Business not science. Part of the job of the "board" will be maintaining the path of science. There's a lot to that and it isn't all bad nor boring by any stretch. Edited May 2, 2016 by hiflier 1
MIB Posted May 2, 2016 Moderator Posted May 2, 2016 The notion of a "board" includes some authority to regulate. Nobody has that. At best you get a toothless yap dog. .. and there isn't much point. Who has been successful so far in being unethical? MIB 2
hiflier Posted May 3, 2016 Author Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) Authority is not automatic. It is granted, and if so then honored. To say nobody has that is simply stating the obvious for whatever reason. And no one said anything about regulation of anything. The term would be evaluate- not regulate. "At best you get a toothless yap dog" is truly a negative projection that has no basis other than to cast a dark cloud on something that doesn't even exist. You have an agenda? Then state it clearly please. Happy with the way things are? Then state that too. Blindly throwing punches in the dark at shadows isn't cutting it. If this as some kind of frivolous joke I would have presented it so. It is not. As far as who has been successful in being unethical? You're kidding right? There are people in our very ranks that many play up to and rub shoulders with that I would consider less that ethical. Again you speak as if you only arrived on the scene last Friday. What? You think this is fun for me somehow? Fun to cull the field? Fun to expose others as not quite on the up and up? Is the status quo so good right now that everyone is that content with the way this subject is being handled? Seriously? Not from what I've read. You? And by the way this isn't personal MIB. I would respond in kind no matter who wrote your post. Edited May 3, 2016 by hiflier
gigantor Posted May 3, 2016 Admin Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) Hiflier, good thinking and although I'm not sold, this discussion needs to occur. Thank You for getting it started. I have a few questions: 1) Will the board be elected? if so, who will elect it? 2) How will the board be funded? 3) How will the criteria for evaluating claims be created and by whom? Edited May 3, 2016 by gigantor
bipedalist Posted May 3, 2016 BFF Patron Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) If you are a professional you are starting to think ethics, if you do not profess to be a professional it is a moot point. Not saying there are not a healthy number of professionals in the field but they will fight an upheld battle dealing with the fallout. How ethical is it to kill a slabmonkey aka Bigfoot? Would it be more ethical to find a dead one and haul him away via tow truck and put'em in a freezer and hawk him at the latest carnival? Lots of questions, few answers. Edited May 3, 2016 by bipedalist
MIB Posted May 3, 2016 Moderator Posted May 3, 2016 Hmmm ... point was lost. Let me try asking a different way. In what way have the attempts to behave unethically harmed any bigfoots? How many have been killed by pro-kill groups' deliberate efforts? How many are in cages? How many are subject to devious biological experiments? Total of ... none ... right? Beyond those, there are no other issues of ethics, only issues of reputation whether personal or of the community. Prioritizing saving face is the antithesis of ethical behavior. Do right ... and let the chips fall where they may. It's really very simple .. until you start rationalizing doing wrong things for self-serving reasons. From a practical standpoint, what is a board of ethics going to do, come take my audio recorder because I won't publish my recording? Confiscate my trail cam because I don't share the pictures? Take Norseman's ammo? Go to Georgia and confiscate freezers? Be realistic ... what teeth does a board have? And a person who actually does get proof? What influence is that board going to have if they take it to news media and have their story aired? From here it seems a misguided feel-good effort with no value. A dog with no teeth, just yap. Nobody. Cares. Remember Blazing Saddles? "We don't need no steeenking badges." That's the real world situation. There's no point in pretending otherwise. Go do what you're going to do. Go not do what you're not going to do. Let your personal conscience be your guide. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to be realistic. MIB 1
hiflier Posted May 3, 2016 Author Posted May 3, 2016 Hi gigantor, Being the intelligent person that you are you more likely than not understand the complexities associated with your questions. I'll therefore do the best I can with them. My answers will not be perfect but should show a good direction each might take- each one could very easily spawn it's own discussion. 1) Will the board be elected? if so, who will elect it? It depends on how the format for creating a board is set up. In order to elect one needs candidates. Those candidates should have a good transparent record of fair evaluation of evidence. Their own as well as that brought by others. They don't necessarily need to be proponents but must have the integrity to weigh evidence and/or an individuals veracity. In other words vet the information as well as the one who presents it. This isn't a job for one person. I don't think a member board of less than 7-11 including a chairperson is out of the question. One way might be this:The candidates might be elected by polling the various Forums and research groups that have websites. The candidates obviously have the choice to be on the board or not. The vetting process for the candidates should be at least result in a 75% yea vote for consideration in a final election to populate the board itself. Another method is for people to offer their services as a board member and then go through the same vetting and election processes already mentioned. 2) How will the board be funded? This too needs to be polled but I see it this way. It's all about credibility. Credibility draws existing membership as well as newcomers an would create a better chance of holding onto that membership. A portion of the revenue that Forum or website charges for deeper membership accesses to data could be used to help compensate the board. If it is known that the board is the ultimate last word on information and report data as well as research efforts in the field then a paying membership will trust what it reads and learns. I see this as a valid feather in the cap of any Forum that supports the board and informs the membership that a portion of the membership fee is to provide a monetary incentive to the board members to perform the tasks necessary to keep honest and worthwhile data coming into the Forums and websites from the field as well as from science sources. Ultimately the trust and respect the board generates will enter that science community and the mantle of woo the BF community wears as a reputation will gradually disappear. In that regard where is one to start in turning over the stigma? The possibility of have a board to filter the chaff from the wheat before it gets to the media would be ideal. Of course ALL forums and Forum membership will know what and why certain reports data, and field work had become unacceptable as transparency in any judgments of this nature should have the public know the reason for any decision making. 3) How will the criteria for evaluating claims be created and by whom? The criteria already exists: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to back it up. There'is room to move around this but by and large I've seen folks comment about goal posts being moved and so there must be limits set on how leeway to allow. Normal Forum discussions and debates will be as normal as they are now however. The board comes into play only when a claim comes in or as discoveries are made in the field. The woo may still be in the Forums but the official stance of the board should only stand on documented physical evidence or claims of contact if those documentations or claims can be substantiated- a board requirement in order to be accepted as being true. I have an entire method for doing just that (vetting documentation and other claims) already laid out which I will eventually present. Thank you gigantor for your questions- they were good ones. 1
bipedalist Posted May 3, 2016 BFF Patron Posted May 3, 2016 (edited) My problem is in the "evaluation" phase. Too many divergent Bigfoot groups, no consensus on what Bigfoot is.....we already have several BF organizations that have formed, dissolved, reorganized or become staid and essentially non-playing ineffective tools to pontificate. I'm lost on how "science" takes hold without basic building blocks of what we are contending with. Don't delude yourself, nobody really knows. Without science of what we are pursuing and the basic foundational elements, the professional (or in the contemporary environment, layman's) need for ethics is moot. Edited May 3, 2016 by bipedalist
hiflier Posted May 3, 2016 Author Posted May 3, 2016 MIB,Your examples are so over the top and/or extreme it difficult for me to think you really mean them. Hmmm ... point was lost. Let me try asking a different way. In what way have the attempts to behave unethically harmed any bigfoots? How many have been killed by pro-kill groups' deliberate efforts? How many are in cages? How many are subject to devious biological experiments? Total of ... none ... right? This isn't about any of that. Beyond those, there are no other issues of ethics, only issues of reputation whether personal or of the community. Prioritizing saving face is the antithesis of ethical behavior. Do right ... and let the chips fall where they may. It's really very simple .. until you start rationalizing doing wrong things for self-serving reasons. Depends on how deep the behavior has reached and who it affects. Ethics is one thing Evaluating evidence and sources is another but the two are inextricably linked. An ethics board would evaluate people as well as evidence. If the evidence holds up then there would be no ethical fallout. Hoaxing is unethical. The evidence presented by the hoaxer would therefore be self incriminationg. From a practical standpoint, what is a board of ethics going to do, come take my audio recorder because I won't publish my recording? Confiscate my trail cam because I don't share the pictures? Take Norseman's ammo? Go to Georgia and confiscate freezers? Be realistic ... what teeth does a board have? And a person who actually does get proof? What influence is that board going to have if they take it to news media and have their story aired? Good grief MIB where the heck are you going with this kind of garbage. No one is going after anyone which means you simply not getting this. The board would be there to evaluate evidence presented TO THE BOARD! Or otherwise presented to the public. If you think I suggesting some kind of hobnailed storm trooper tactic then you've really missed the boat on this one. From here it seems a misguided feel-good effort with no value. It's because you don't understand it- or don't want to. A dog with no teeth, just yap. Nobody. Cares. Remember Blazing Saddles? "We don't need no steeenking badges." That's the real world situation. There's no point in pretending otherwise. If you see no benefit then fine. Truth is this dg wouldn't have any teeth- wouldn't need any teeth. Another truth is no one want to belong to a board lie that. But someone MIGHT want to belong to something that when a claim comes in they have the resources both in the field and in science to vet that claim as well as possibly the individual if they are unknown to anyone. Unless of course you'd rather have 20 pages here to wade through with little more than opinion because no one has access t the source of the claim or a way to fly 2000 miles to verify the info. Do me a favor if you will. Don't all of a sudden come at me now yelling about putting board members on planes to vet evidence. It wouldn't surprise me as that's how you've been handling this idea from the beginning. Jumping to conclusions and creating false outlandish scenarios is becoming annoying. Go do what you're going to do. Go not do what you're not going to do. Let your personal conscience be your guide. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to be realistic. MIB
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 New research groups won't be taken any more seriously than the current ones. Also, the damage has already been done. The only thing that'll make this field of research establish itself as worthwhile is "hard" evidence for the existence of Sasquatch. In this case that means a full body...
hiflier Posted May 3, 2016 Author Posted May 3, 2016 My problem is in the "evaluation" phase. Too many divergent Bigfoot groups, no consensus on what Bigfoot is.....we already have several BF organizations that have formed, dissolved, reorganized or become staid and essentially non-playing ineffective tools to pontificate. I'm lost on how "science" takes hold without basic building blocks of what we are contending with. Don't delude yourself, nobody really knows. Without science of what we are pursuing and the basic foundational elements, the professional (or in the contemporary environment, layman's) need for ethics is moot. Yes it is an issue. And will remain an issue which is something I don't think the majority wants. The majority wants information that is true and verifiable. AND they want people in the higher levels of Bigfootery to be trustworthy. Let's face it, a board no matter where it is would be ineffective without member support. That membership would demand and require trust and therefore uphold any board vetting or decisions on evidence or even on people that they may scrutinize and find shady. As far as divergent groups go they can and will remain diverged. No issues there. And any evidence they can keep to themselves should they so desire. But if they present the evidence to the public they may wish to work with the board members for best results. Those results being that the board should have an evidence section on each Forum that supports it. So is a divergent group or researcher brings evidence in it could be disseminated on every Forum that has a board section. This is all about credibility for the group, research individual, board, Forum as well as the membership and ultimately the subject itself. It's going to be a long road but as I said before where, when, and ho is the community going to start doing something for itself instead of complaining about the stigma of being a proponent. It doesn't matter that there isn't an across the board consensus on what this creature is. It really doesn't. What does matter is that any evidence can be vetted by our peers or have access to the field and scientific methods to do such vetting. The latter will only come with time and credible documentation. There already is some but it needs to be brought under one roof as the board should be the official spokesperson of the community when it comes to engaging science or the media. If there is a general oversight board then it won't matter if groups, websites, or Forums come and go. The board will be accessible to all who wish to present evidence to the community by way of first getting the evidence evaluated by at least a board margin of 30% say. The board members can be anywhere and could be contacted through each Forum or website's section that supports the board's activities. Ethics and evaluation is all the board will address. The ethical part is more geared to in-house, intra-community affairs that will, or should, present wrongdoing or unethical behavior that is seen as taking unfair advantage of the believing community. This is why evaluation of evidence and ethics is for the most part inseparable.
Recommended Posts