Should Bigfootery Have An Ethics Board

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Absolutely, BigFooterY should have an ethics board.

 

Good luck with that

[hiflier]

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...

 

Agreed. But this isn't a new research body. In fact it would have little or nothing to do with research. It is an evaluating body only. It would evaluate what research is presented to it. There's a lot more to that statement by the way so don't be alarmed if the comment seems to have a lot of loose ends right now. I'm trying to present this in the proper order for taking a better look at the whole thing.

 

And this is ultimately about that "hard" evidence as only vetted hard evidence will serve anyone. But the damage done took a while and I think it had help from the "outside" if you will. So the damage will be slow to heal but what does one do to repair that damage? And when does one start? And how? Is there a plan no one has told me about? I don't think anyone on the Forum has heard of one. Also no one thinks that different groups and organizations can work together. I will say this though. If those different groups ever though that power and respect could be gained by doing so they just might think it a good idea. Stay separate but work for the common purpose of getting science and the public's respect. There is actually a way to do that. It's part of this picture of creating an oversight board.

[hiflier]

Absolutely, BigFooterY should have an ethics board.

 

Good luck with that

 

Ya know Squatchy? I think you're serious about that- 'cause I sure am. I'm sick and tired of seeing folks hosed every time they turn around. Believe it or not (and you do) yours is a pretty positive post. Got any more to jump on this bandwagon? Look, I'm a proponent. If people and researchers and groups want to bring things in from the field that's great. But I think it would be better to have the 'ol back-leg-of-the-alligator evaluated first before it becomes a "primate arm" and finds it's way onto this Forum. Everyone get in a tither and then....pfffftt !! Was it a pseudo hoax to promote Skunk Ape  conference weekend? Was it therefore unethical? Is this what winning $100,000 in bounty money results in? Jumping the gun for what? More profit? Naaaahhh! we don't need a board for this crap do we. 

[gigantor]

I'm starting to warm up to the idea.

 

I think it would be helpful to point out an existing, successful model in other communities.

 

Would you say the Better Business Bureau (BBB) is a fair example of what you're thinking?

Edited May 3, 2016 by gigantor

[Yuchi1]

BBB

 

Better Bigfoot Bureau

[bipedalist]

I like Beast Bailed Bingo better....or Bigfoot Balderdash Ballyhoo in a pinch 

Edited May 3, 2016 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

Bigfoot Bad Boys. I'm working up an example of how such an entity would function. Specifically presenting a hypothetical case in which the "Bad Boys" would function in an ideal world. We are not in an ideal world so one shouldn't take the example as perfect. The important thing is that regardless of my "Bigfoot Bad Boys" this body of people will not carry big stick. It's not that kind of thing. It's function is to have more of an information clearing house if you will that vets evidence and people. In that respect some information will take longer to wade through than others but in the end their decision will be based on many pertinent factors and sources.

Several things would need to be in place but the most critical would be that researchers in the field are aware that their discoveries or evidence will be carefully and thoroughly scrutinized for veracity. To me that's a good thing for everyone including those field researchers. Knowing that there is a trusted and competent group to submit evidence to could mean that any apprehension they may have over a severe negative backlash from the community-at-large because of ignorance or malice could be much less than if they brought the evidence directly to the public themselves.

At the same time it raises the bar in what would be acceptable as strong evidence because the board has ALL of the past evidence with it's strengths and weaknesses, along with the people and their track records to go by. So generally a good record of what and how to vet evidence. The science is better now too. Wouldn't it be nice to have a fund for submitting a strong candidate for DNA testing?

So everyone in the field would know they now have a potential back up for their findings but they will also know any findings must then be verifiable. In this ideal world the researchers in one state would know who the other researchers in the same state are even though they may not work together for reasons of distance, personal schedules etc. The board would know who these people are and the researchers would have a relationship with the board in return.

An example off the top of my head would be in Oregon where they supposedly found BF bedding areas. IIRC other's were called in to help with the investigations. Something like that could happen anywhere quickly if the board as notified of something say in Iowa. The board would contact the researchers in Iowa and start a dialogue to see if a team could be gathered to bolster the researcher who made the initial find. Documentation could then be done, records kept, and a report could be submitted to the board for evaluation or for further study. Passing the info onto all the Forums and websites after first informing a group of scientists that have been more open and trusting to information coming in from this body because of it's integrity then would be next.

The Forums then could have their usual activities of internet research and opinion not unlike how things are now. This is a general outline so pick it apart and improve on it if you can. Suggestions are welcome. This idea is something that cannot and will not happen over night. And it won't work from the top down by gathering a group of people and then expecting everyone to abide by it. This has to beging at ground level and slowly work it's way into a structure that everyone knows, knows who's who, and trusts, understands and supports it function.

Almost ready to tackle the ethics part.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Bigfoot ethics, go kill a human for species identification.

[hiflier]

If anything we've read for reports and rumor have any truth then both Humans and Bigfoot have had the chance to secure their respective specimens already

Before this continues there is something I would like to bring up for discussion. If I thought of this then perhaps someone else has thought of it too. What would be the difference between this concept and some other organization? Specifically the BFRO? They have state field reps and investigate reports so what advantages, if any, would having a board to evaluate evidence? Would the BFRO recognize the entity and support it? I say the answer is no, they would not recognize the board and therefore remain isolated from it.

Does anyone see any potential advantages to a board that they support and help make policy for? Since the BFF is the biggest website what might it gain in return for supporting a board? How might it work with such a group to assure the free flow of information from the field for both the Forum along with others and the board itself? What might be rule number one that the board must follow? I think initially the word "transparency" would pretty much answer all questions here

[norseman]

Bigfoot ethics, go kill a human for species identification.

We taste like Chicken....

[hiflier]

They might too!

[hiflier]

The way I see it the board would not all of a sudden scramble over a footprint found in say, Idaho. They wouldn't call other Idaho researchers and tell them to hurry over to such and such a location to vet one footprint. A trackway? absolutely. If it turns out to be bear then fine. The primary researcher should however know the difference and if not sure then utilize the board's resources. This would be for when everything is just getting off the ground.

After a while the individual researchers working on their own or in small groups would have each other's contact info. They could then converge on something significant without the board and do the entire investigation as far as they can take it THEN present their findings to the board for evaluation and perhaps move toward a scientist of two doing a follow up. More on this later.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

Bigfoot ethics, go kill a human for species identification.

We taste like Chicken....

 

The other white meat ; )

[hiflier]

Can we move back to topic now please?

[Incorrigible1]

Great topic, Hiflier. I nominate you for any ethics board. You'd be an excellent judge!