Observations of the Bigfoot Community:The Burden of Proof

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Critical_ thinking

Definition of Believe
Be`lieve´
v. t.1.To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to have an opinion; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.

::All of the following content is of my own opinion, and in no way reflects the opinions of others. I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time due to any circumstance. It's all part of the natural growth and learning experience. Opinions can be temporary, or ever lasting. They are at no time set in stone, and should not be viewed as such. If you are offended by the things I say, good. If you think I am talking about you as an individual, I'm probably not. Either way, I'm glad you read it.::

Observations of the Bigfoot Community:The Burden of Proof

by Matt Knapp

First I want to say this. There is NO SUCH THING as a "Bigfoot Scientist." There are certain fields of science that happen to overlap with not only items involving Bigfoot research, but with each other as well. In those areas of overlapping, it can be somewhat beneficial to involve scientific findings of the individual fields. Such as comparing hard evidence with known physiology traits, or using known facts involving biomechanics to study track impressions and castings. Outside of that, the facts are the actual scientists involved in Bigfoot research comprise less than 1% of the research community as a whole. Those very few individuals who are actual accredited scientists in their respected fields have absolutely no credibility in regard to Bigfoot's existence. Let me clarify that I mean no disrespect by saying that. What I simply mean is that Jeff Meldrum for instance is an accredited scientist, but even his expertise has no persuasion towards proving Bigfoot's existence to the rest of the scientific community. So claiming to be a scientist, or that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of researchers to prove Bigfoot's existence to scientists is a moot point. No scientist in this field is anymore an expert on Bigfoot than I am, and thus far has had no more success in proving their existence than anyone else. So what difference does it make if a person is a scientist, or a tow truck driver, if the results they achieve are the same? At one time I believed if a scientist were to make the statement that they for instance found a Bigfoot track to be authentic, and belonging to an unknown species, that their voice would be heard to the rest of the scientific community. Where if I were to make the same such claim, I would go ignored due to my lack of professional credentials. History has proven that theory false however. It doesn't matter who you are, what your background is, what degree you have or don't have. The scientific community views your findings in this field no different than anyone else's. And without a specimen, all of those findings will be found irrelevant.

If you are collecting physical evidence and data in hopes of compiling information on this creature, I do believe scientific principles should be followed. This is simply for the fact that if you do so, your evidence and data will not have holes allowing it to be instantly dismissed. For instance, unless proper procedures are taken in the collection of DNA, that DNA will become contaminated and worthless. Tracks are only worth casting, if the castings are done properly as to maintain the slightest amount of detail as possible. So on and so forth. The pro-kill individuals need not worry about these procedures. If they are able to bring in a specimen, all of that work will be done by the scientists in the proper laboratory settings. Not out in the field by individuals who are not properly trained in the collection techniques. By saying that I am not trying to down play the significance of proper scientific methods used in the field. I in fact practice them myself, and believe anyone who has purposes other than bringing in an actual specimen should follow them as well. If nothing else it shows that we are serious about what we're doing, and are at least attempting to go about it in a professional and constructed method.

Mud slinging, name calling, my side vs. your side, agree with me or you're wrong, your information doesn't support my opinions, and various other forms of absolute ignorance. It seems as though I've been here before. The continued chasing of our own tails as though we're caught in some sort of never-ending loop of time and space. That tail my friends is called ego. Condescending, self-absorbed, ego. There are different classes of knowledge when it comes to this field. There are those who believe it or not actually do KNOW some things about these creatures. There are also those in this field who know NOTHING about these creatures. In the case of people who do know some things, there are individuals who act as though they know it all. Then there are those willing to admit they only know some. In the group of those who know nothing, there are individuals who act or believe as though they actually do in fact know things. There are also those who openly admit they know nothing. Regardless, none of us know all of it. While some of our knowledge may be spot on, there will always be some of it that isn't. No-kill doesn't mean you are the enemy of pro-kill. It means you possibly have a different goal, and you certainly have different methods. Choosing one side or the other doesn't make you any more or any less intelligent than the other side. Whether it be the good ole boy from the south roaming the woods with a high powered rifle, or the stuffy tight collared science drove researcher who spends hours dissecting other people's evidence and reports, or even the professor at the university with several degrees sitting on top of their reference book shelf, all of them so far have produced the same results and had the same amount of bearing on the scientific community in proving this thing's existence. Absolutely none. It certainly doesn't make any group more or less intelligent than the other, and even if there was a difference in overall intelligence, none of that intelligence applies to the field of Bigfoot. How does knowing more about the skeletal structure of an upright mammal in comparison to it's weight distribution give you a leg up in the field of Bigfoot? Especially if you've never seen one. Perhaps if you had that knowledge, and then observed a Bigfoot walking, you would at least then know "Hey, I was right." or "I was completely wrong about what I thought." Perhaps if you took the time to have an open mind, and listen to people who actually have observed these creatures, you would have a better understanding, or even be able to give them knowledge they could apply in the field based on their own observations. We're too busy for that though. We're too busy trying to prove one another wrong or discredit the things each other say because they don't mesh with what we believe or what we know. Sounds like a waste of time to me.

Which brings us to our beginning. Before all of this, I gave a link to an article about critical thinking, and the definition of the word "believe."

Critical thinking is extremely crucial in solving this mystery. It provides a philosophical checks and balances system amongst our peers for the study and review of evidence brought forth. A part of that critical thinking is in fact scientific skepticism. An ability to weigh the evidence from a scientific standpoint. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. A lot of the people in this field who make some of the boldest claims, are in fact skeptical people. I was skeptical of their existence until I saw one. Now I am skeptical of certain other people who claim to have seen one. This skepticism is based from my own observations, and my critical thinking. There are others however, who claim to be critical thinkers, and scientifically minded in their endeavors. This group of people is rapidly growing. They do not fairly and genuinely assess the evidence. Seldom do they put forth the effort to even find out for themselves if something is true or not. They are a new breed of skeptic. A skeptic that comes from within our own community. They sit atop their Mount Olympus, hurling lightning bolts at the peasants below. They view terms such as "believer" as if it's some sort of derogatory moniker. No evidence passes their scrutiny. Anyone who makes claims of a sighting or an encounter, regardless of circumstance, is met with hostility and instant disbelief by these individuals. Unless of course it comes from within their own group of colleagues. They are not the self-proclaimed experts of the past. Although one would make the observation that they do in fact believe themselves more knowledgeable than all others as a whole, they would never give you the chance to use that against them by admitting they are in fact "experts." They hide behind their pseudo-humbleness when ranks are drawn against them. However they attack with the ferocity of rabid lions when it plays to their favor. They do not dare tip toe onto one side of the fence or the other, constantly adjusting their position in accordance with the others around them. These groupings constantly manifest into new forms, as the fate of these individuals is to find themselves in constant arguments, eventually with one another. They then run to a new group of individuals, and start the process all over again. In a lot of ways they are like angry and bitter orphans, running from one orphanage to the next. Never having the integrity to form an opinion of their own, or at least to publicly state those opinions, they instead choose to agree with whomever has the popular voice at the time. They've never seen a Bigfoot, nor would they ever admit that they believe Bigfoot to be real. For to do this would be saying they believe someone other than themselves Self-righteous thinkers refuse to do that. Always displacing their reasons behind their comments onto some grand motive that represents the well being of everyone. For instance, if you were to show them a cast of a track, they would drill you with questions in an ultimate attempt of putting you on the defensive. When confronted with the question as to why they are trying to disprove your finding, they would claim that it is you who has the burden of proving the casting was in fact that of a Bigfoot. These are often the people who rely on "If you didn't see a Bigfoot do it, then you don't know a Bigfoot did it." Which is a true statement, but then if you were to claim you did in fact see a Bigfoot leave the track, then they would ask that you prove that you saw a Bigfoot do it. These people claim to be Bigfoot researchers. I repeat, these people claim to be Bigfoot researchers. If the only proof of evidence they will accept outside of their own circles is unobtainable, then why waste not only the time and energy of everyone else in the community, but of themselves as well. If they have to follow the strict guidelines they put on everyone else, as they claim they do, then what would be the point of their exercise in futility? What is it they seek? What is it they hope to gain? The feeling of superiority perhaps?

Belief. I am sick and tired of people using the word against others. A believer is not a person who is mindless and goes through life with limited blinders on due to their actual belief. I want to say this to all the people who believe in the existence of Bigfoot, even if you have never laid eyes on one or taken a step out into the woods. IT'S OKAY! Do not hold your head in shame for your beliefs just because some ignorant fool attacks you for those beliefs. There is no such thing as a non-believer. Everyone believes in something. Creationists are believers. Evolutionists are believers. Skeptics are believers. Quantum physicists are believers. Doctors, lawyers, police officers. All believers. The entire realm of science is based on various belief systems. I am a believer. I believe in what I have seen and experienced. I believe in what certain others have seen and experienced. Some people I do not believe because I believe I know something. Some people don't believe me because they believe someone else, or they believe that if I were right in what I say, they would know it. Do not discredit someone else for their beliefs or that of your own. I can take any aspect of life and show the lack of self proven fact which in turn makes it nothing more than a belief. If the same standards that are put on us in the field of Bigfoot research were applied to everyday life, we would have accomplished nothing. The burden of proof for instance. If I find a track in the woods, how do I know Bigfoot left it there? Did I see Bigfoot leave it there? If I didn't see Bigfoot leave it there, how can I prove it is in fact a Bigfoot track? Are there not other possibilities? Do I have any proof that I did see a Bigfoot leave the track if I in fact say that I did? Who is your mother? How do you know she's your mother? Have you done DNA testing to prove that she's your mother? Do you have non-stop video documentation of your life since the moment of birth, to show that she is indeed your mother, and that the infant she gave birth to grew up and became who you are at this very moment? Have you had the video analyzed to make sure it hasn't been edited or tampered with digitally? Isn't there the possibility you were lied to, or that your mother was fooled, and her actual infant was switched with another at the hospital? It almost sounds silly doesn't it? The point being, every aspect of life is based on belief. To attack someone, or use the term "believer" as a derogatory term is ignorant at best. Besides, if you truly felt that way, you would have to stop because you would believe you were right. That would make you a believer.

If we would just lower our own standards a bit. Focus on the task at hand, and not get caught up in trying to be superior to someone else. Listen to one another. Give someone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. There can be checks and balances. There can be critical thinking, scientific skepticism, and scientific method and guidelines followed in the collection and presentation of evidence and data. What needs to stop is the destructive and negative criticism of our peers who are just out there trying to accomplish their own goals, or the goals commonly shared by others in this field. Express your own ideas and findings instead of attacking the ideas and findings of someone else. If you think I'm wrong about something, show me different. Don't attack me for it. If I think you're wrong, I probably won't even say anything. I don't need to. You being wrong about something isn't going to change anything for me. If I can help you out, or show you something so you can see how you are wrong I might do that. As long as you're open and willing to learn. If you aren't willing to be wrong about anything, then you aren't willing to learn. At that point I have no use for you, and you have no use for me. Either way there is no reason to attack or argue about it. In all honesty, this entire endeavor is probably pointless outside of bringing in a specimen. Anything beyond that should be done for your own self. The chances are, if a specimen is brought in, the scientific community isn't going to be interested in any evidence or data we've collected. Once they have a specimen, they will collect their own data using their own methods. I no longer feel the burden of proof lies on us. It is not up to us to prove Bigfoot exists. The only thing for us to do is present a specimen to the public and scientific communities. The specimen will prove it's own existence. All we're here for is to make sure it gets there. Or at least that's what I believe.

Matt Knapp 2007