The return of The Bigfoot Field Guide Show

After a good many years of hiatus, the return of The Bigfoot Field Guide Show has returned in a video podcast format, with lots of new features and the abilities to show videos, presentations, photos and even play audio for our audience as we discuss Bigfoot Research.

 


 


 


 

 

 

Stay tuned to this page or visit our YouTube channel at this link https://www.youtube.com/@bigfootfieldguide/

Ambulance chasing in Bigfoot research

So, what do we mean by "ambulance chasing" in the Bigfoot community?

Simple: It's when researchers travel all over the place and check out locations where a recent sighting has been reported. Or even where a report had been turned in from a year or two ago, and they are visiting the area in hopes of scoring a sighting.

Just like some lawyers who chase after ambulances for potential customers, these researchers are chasing sightings in hopes of a potential encounter, or worse yet, just to be able to claim they were present at that site. It's like those who travel to Bluff Creek just so they can say they went there.

I have found a lot of researchers tend to do this, instead of focusing on their own research areas, which would more than likely produce more results than traveling around the country and going to other sites.

One group in particular I was trying my best to advise on how to do the best research possible – and that I held in high regard, that they could become great researchers – fell into this early on and could not be dissuaded from this tactic.

How can you tell someone is ambulance-chasing? Look at the pictures that they post: Do they show them at different locations, like in the Pacific Northwest or other well-known locations? Do they make it a point to tell you where they are and why they are there?

The researchers I tried to guide through this have posted thousands of pictures of themselves going across the southeast part of the country, a multitude of pictures across the South and Southwest, and now are venturing into the Pacific Northwest, all the while having a prime piece of land noted for having lots of activity as the research area.

Why does this seem to matter? Because it waters down the credible research being brought in, as they offer up “research” from these areas. A perfect example: Salt Fork Park in Ohio, has become one of the ultimate pilgrimages for ambulance chasers and wannabe celebrities to visit and walk around a little bit, before proclaiming they were there, and do the whole "look at me" bit.

It also dilutes the legitimate research that has been done at Salt Fork Park by others, because people are just showing up there to say they were there.

Over the years, I’ve had other researchers approach me and say, “Hey, I have a couple of new areas we need to check out.” And my response is, "I already have too many actual research areas to keep track of."

A researcher I know well and respect had the bad habit of hearing about activity at a location, and doing everything possible to be allowed into the area, even when it belonged to another researcher. The fact that activity happened days earlier didn’t seem to sink in, and when the researcher showed up, there would be activity days later. When they would get into a few spots, and nothing happened, they would vent for days and weeks that nothing happened originally, or it would have happened for them while they were there.

I’ve done research for years, I know if an area’s activity picks up, it can suddenly die off as quickly as it started, and may not have anything happen for several years before it picks up again.

For those who ambulance chase, it just really keeps their credibility down. You should find your own research area and cultivate it, grow it and make something of it.

 

Arkansas Bigfoot Conference Videos

Robert "Laughsquatch" Swain's Presentation about Laughsquatch cartoons.

Jim "Biggjimm" Whitehead's Presentation

Lauren Smith (Nite Callers Radio) Presentation

Arkansas Bigfoot Cartel's Presentation

Robert "Laughsquatch" Swain Second Presentation

Question and Answer session with the speakers

D.W. "Darkwing" Lee's Presentation

Michael Mayes Presentation

Let’s Talk Bigfoot!-Why Science won’t listen to us

It appears there is no end to opinions to what an unknown critter called bigfoot is, let alone of what or does and does not do. Where it lives and where it does not. Heck, there is not even an agreement of it is a natural evolved critter or comes from ufos or another dimensions!
 
In this article let’s talk about why science won’t listen to us?
 
It seems to be a common theme with bigfoot researchers. Let’s take a look to see if it is true.
 
When dealing with science and scientists there are a couple things we need to know. First, what is science?
 
sci·ence
/ˈsīəns/
noun
noun: science
 
1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
 
So, isn’t that what we are doing? Short answer is yes. However, without doing the due diligence of recording and documenting what we are doing we really can’t call it systematic study as most are only observing. Doing experiments and getting repeatable results is a big part of science. This is where the community suffers a lot. Instead of working together it seems to be a competition each thinking what they do is better than the others and not willing to even consider what the other groups are doing that has results. We, by nature, don’t have an easy time with the idea of delayed gratification. We want our results to be accepted and appreciated now. That is not how science works. Science uses repeatable experiments over time to show what they are seeing is fact. But science is controlled by scientists. So, what is a scientist?
 
sci·en·tist
/ˈsīəntəst/
noun
noun: scientist; plural noun: scien-tists
1. a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
"a research scientist"
 
When we look at the definition, we see what we as amateur scientist don’t have. We don’t have the “expert knowledge” that they went to school to get. One example that I can readily think of is the old cave man idea of the Neanderthals. When I went to school, they were nothing but half-witted sub-human types that were not even close to being equal to us let alone part of us. It took decades to overturn that idea. It was the best knowledge they had at the time. But what is knowledge?
 
knowl·edge
/ˈnäləj/
noun
noun: knowledge; plural noun: knowledges
1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical under-standing of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
 
In our society education seems to be king not experiences. Unless you went through some institution that says you’ve learned what is needed to be knowledgeable, you aren’t. That paper on the wall means a lot in society now days.
 
Unfortunately, throughout hu-man history the one who had the knowledge of this or that has fought fiercely to defend it. The vested interest in having the knowledge is vast and, in most circumstances, not given up easily or admitted that something isn’t known by them. Knowledge is equated to power in our society.
 
It’s not some conspiracy that is against us Bigfooters, it is an innate condition of humans.
 
For example, city folks have the knowledge that they have gotten from their environment, education, and experiences. Just like us country folks, but both think that they have more knowledge than the other. That in my opinion is the biggest flaw in us humans. How many times have you heard the line that I’ve got to see it to believe it? If 99% of the population hasn’t see a bigfoot or even considered a bigfoot is there, how can you expect people to believe it.
 
You know a few years back I heard a phrase that at the time made no sense to me. I heard some head doctor type say, “it’s my truth”. I first thought that was some psychological mumbo jumbo that he was feeding folks to try and sell some books or something. It wasn’t until I did the on-site investigation where two brothers saw the same exact critter, and both had such different details of the encounter that would make one think that they had separate experiences, not the same event. One of them was traumatized and the other was in awe. Then it made sense. We can only base our knowledge, our truth, by what we have seen, learned, and experienced.
 
It wasn’t until the early part of the last century that people thought gorillas and chimps weren’t real. Until then the scholars said they were a myth or folklore of those “uneducated” country people of the region. Sadly, it took an “educated” person to go into those areas and find out that those uneducated were right and telling the truth. Science is controlled by scientists and just like everyone else they form their facts or truth from their education and experiences.
 
Unfortunately, a lot of them are satisfied that the book they learned out of is the final word on the subject. Another problem is the money for whatever the field of science is researching comes in the form of grants. What foundation that gives grants wants to put money into bigfoot research? None so far. With the government being one of the biggest money providers for science, what else would you expect?
 
Then you factor in us in the bigfoot community. We for the most part, don’t do the rigorous discipline of accurately documenting the data we collect. Science wants controlled experiments with repeatable results. That isn’t really easy with a critter like this, so we are behind the eight ball to begin with. With a critter like a primate that can change and adapt to a situation so quickly it makes it difficult.
 
Next, if you add the internet and social media to the mix and who in their right mind would want to pursue the subject if their professional reputation was on the line? Just google bigfoot and look at all the garbage out there.
If you have ever had the chance to talk to someone who is a scientist in any field about their education and you’ll find out something surprising. A lot of their classes are on how to debate. Seems that science really likes to argue of who is right and why the other is wrong. Scientists like most people have a real hard time with new ideas and change. A lot of times things don’t change or are allowed to change until the most prominent people in the field dies. It is only then that the newest information comes to light. So just because today there may be a lot of pushback to the thought that a species like Bigfoot can exist, the next generation may not be so closed minded as we know new species are recognized every year.
 
So, what are we supposed to do? Keep collecting the data. Keep the best records of what we do, see, hear, etc. as we can. Be willing to try and help prove what others are doing works. Most of all be humble and be prepared with DATA to be able to support what you are presenting. One fact is that science doesn’t care how you feel or what you think or what you say. If you want science to take you seriously you have to let the data talk for itself. If all the I’s aren’t dotted and all the T’s aren’t crossed it won’t be received as complete data. If we as a community wants to be taken seriously, we have to get serious about documenting all the data, get repeatable results from what we do in the woods. And unfortunately, that takes years not months.

Beaver Gap Wood Knocks Recording

The exact date and time of this recording has been lost to multiple versions of the MABRC forums where that information had been stored.  What occurred here, was that Darkwing and Cherokee Rose had went out to Beaver Gap (Skilleyville) to do some daytime recon work.  As they drove slowly with the windows down along the large ridge on the east side of the Gap, they heard something large walking towards the edge of the cliff above them.  Stopping and shutting off the vehicle, they soon began to hear these wood knocks that continued above them on the ridge for nearly 20 minutes.  Here is part of the recording that was captured with a recorder, it loses a lot of the actual quality since it was an older recorder that had to be transferred to the computer with an audio cable, not a USB cable.