Steven Streufert: Bigfoot Research Should Be Called "Outdoor Exploration"
Some people see Bigfoot research as field research while others think of it as just a field trip. However you want to see it, it's not really research says Steven Streufert, editor of thebigfootnews.blogspot.com. Streufert suggests we call it "outdoor exploration". Here's why:
It seems to me that the presumption of Bigfoot is blinding to the true nature of the context and evidence. It is most valuable just to look and to learn, about everything. If one discovers bear signs, that is a valuable learning experience. If one learns zoology, botany, geology or hydrology, these are valuable keys to understanding a habitat. To see Bigfoot in everything is not only to miss these true understandings, but it is in fact an instance of getting lost in the woods. The sleep of reason breeds monsters.
Click here to read the full post at thebigfootnews.blogspot.com.
Dammit, sorry Shawn.
ReplyDeleteToo soon?Too soon?
yep :)
DeleteOk,I'll slow it down.
Deletewhat,did we miss the inside joke here?
DeleteIt's so cold in the D
ReplyDeleteYawn...how about a bigfoot picture or more beating up Ryder...always good fun.
ReplyDeleteYea,a good Dick Ryder beating up is always good for the heart.
DeleteToo soon.
DeleteYawn
ReplyDeleteThe researchers I spend time with and I do not think everything they see or hear is a Bigfoot. That is not a fair assessment. They are experienced in the outdoors and know what is a bear track or scat, what is a bird call, what is a coyote. You do not know these people because we don't spend our days posting videos and pictures of every non-Bigfoot or undetermined experience on YouTube and Facebook just for attention.
ReplyDeleteThese people spend a lot of time in the woods because this is what they enjoy doing and because this can only increase their odds of having a Bigfoot encounter or getting some legitimate data. We have had experiences that we know to be Bigfoot, and this just drives us to keep going out again and again. And to increase our chances of gathering that data we always go to the woods prepared with the right equipment: voice recorders that are always time stamped and going, parabolic dishes for distance determination, cameras, and video, and night vision at the ready. Journals kept of our time, locations and events.
I think we have a lot better chance of an encounter, and better odds of recording the evidence of that encounter than someone sitting on their computer waiting for Bigfoot to knock on their front door in my opinion.
You have to actually be in the woods for Bigfoot to find you.
I don't know about all that.
DeleteWell, then you are on the right track.
DeleteI would still ask, however, how do we know things are bigfoot related, especially when the creature is not seen clearly and fully?
Not all people looking into the Bigfoot issue are blinded by presumption, but it remains a constant psychological factor potentially biasing research efforts.
And as far as being in the woods, well yes... that is one reason I live in the woods myself, right on the edge of Willow Creek.
Also, I'd argue that one does not necessarily have to be "in the woods" or "doing research" to see a Bigfoot. According to the locals here and the sightings record, there are many sightings that occur right on the highways, on people's back porches and in their yards. There have been sightings reported in very unlikely places, including areas not predominantly of the classic type of northwestern forest, such as the edges of suburban housing grids, deserts, swamps, even out on the ocean. Some people have seen Bigfoot materialize in their living rooms, as well. I'm not too sure where to draw the line in the cases of sightings, between the vagaries of human perception and the possibility of an actual creature. The ambiguity of many if not most of the situations must be considered, constantly, as a factor in possible false perception and assumption. I've had deer walk right past my cabin and sound exactly like a bipedal Bigfoot. Only with further investigation was I able to see that is was a deer. Without this investigation I could easily have become famous for saying a Bigfoot walked past my window. Research must be done honestly, with constant error-checking of oneself and one's assumptions and perceptions. The desire to encounter Bigfoot can override critical distance, especially in the excitement of the hunt under ambiguous nighttime circumstances.
Delete
DeleteYou could just as easily posit, based upon the sightings record, that the most effective method of "Squatching" is simply to drive along the highways in your car. At least half of the local reports I've gotten from around here have been of this nature. A good portion of the others were had while someone was in one's own yard and saw one. These people, also, tend to have clear, vivid sightings, whereas many of the "researcher" reports I hear are just odd sounds in the night, or stuff that seems quite often to be clearly related to the activities of owls, deer and bear, or gravity and wind, for that matter.
MATETIALIZE IN SOMEONES LIVING ROOM?! C'MON STEVEN!!!
DeleteThat was, of course, a joke.
DeleteMeaning... people claim all kinds of things, and not all of them can possibly be true. One habituator did claim a living room materialization. I don't believe it, but it is perhaps not much more ludicrous than MindSpeak and shapeshifting.
MY BAD.. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP FRIEND!
DeleteI didn't say it is *necessarily* "not really research." I was saying that research should not be conducted with a preconceived bias that distorts observation and discounts learning in the name of a predetermined yet unfounded hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteAs if I need someone telling me what I should call what I do. Quite simply, I call it enjoying myself in the peace and quiet.
ReplyDeleteMr. Streufert is entitled to his opinions though, just don't be so pushy about it.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Who is being pushy, Sasquai? I'm only saying that one should observe everything for what it is, and not always presume it is Bigfoot doing it. I can tell you that I've spent countless hours up in Bluff Creek, with nothing truly out of the ordinary happening. As soon as I get home I hear tales from certain "researcher" types of footprints, howls, wood knocks, Bigfoot moving in the brush. Just the week before or whatever when we were there I had the very same experiences: bear tracks (or finding our own footprints), deer and owl vocalizations, and bear moving in the brush. It never ceases to astonish me how the reports of Bigfoot rock-throwing go on the rise at the very same time of year the tan oaks are dropping their acorns. It takes a full knowledge of one's environment to identify causation properly. I advocate that kind of learning, an approach that does not have "Bigfoot on the Brain," but is open to the possibility of their presence nonetheless.
DeleteI am not saying, "Don't do Bigfoot Research." I am saying Do It Rightly, in a way that finds real facts, and not flights of fantasy.
"Wood knocks" are very often replicated exactly by gravity and branch decay. As the wood breaks, slowly, it pops and knocks. Sometimes trees just lose limbs, and the wood knocks upon itself. Sometimes trees just fall over, without Bigfoot or even the wind pushing them. I have witnessed this on numerous occasions, and the event often takes a long, slow course of time, giving the illusion that it is the action of an animal and not simple gravity.
DeleteSo basically what your sayIng is it all points to the fact that Bigfoot doesn't exist
DeleteNo, I never said that. I'd say it is fruitless to presume Bigfoot before the facts, and if one is interested, consider the possibility of their existence in the light of properly interpreted experience. There are many good indications that Bigfoot could actually exist, but there are just as many indications of human delusion and misperception at play. We need to be able to see the difference when entering "the field" to study what might be out there. Some people have had no desire to see a Bigfoot, nor even much of an idea of them, but they claim sightings nonetheless. It is situations like that which intrigue me the most.
DeleteHi Steven, good points. On this website we must differentiate between outdoor exploration and backdoor exploration.
DeleteI'd say an undetected 8 foot ape species living in north america is pretty unlikely and you give a lot of great arguments to support that.
DeleteMy argument is for an honest investigation of things in nature, in the real world, and if Bigfoot is part of that, well, cool, then. So be it, either way. To me the sightings record is definitely intriguing, and suggestive of something going on in the woods. Whether that something is in the human mind or a real creature is a great mystery in and of itself.
DeleteId say that the odds of encountering Stevens fish eyes in the forest, slim to none. He will be at the optometrist most days.
DeleteYou are such a foolish imbecile. Try adding something constructive, really. Lame.
DeleteNo wonder you live in the woods,anti social
DeleteIGNORE THEM STEVEN AND THEY'LL GO AWAY!!!
DeleteNot seeing the "pushy" you do, SN. You make a very reasonable set of points, Steven. With all of the "researchers" out there, I find it interesting that so many cite and are more likely to believe "witnesses" who are NOT searching for Bigfoot.
DeleteA perfect example of a Looney toon Bigfoot researcher is Joe black. Check his latest video where he describes how all his trail cameras were disabled by Bigfoot. Somehow managed to get ZERO pictures of this happening even though there was like 6 cameras all pointing to each other. I'm not making this up this guy actually believes what he's saying. This is bigfooting folks and it's a joke full of Looney toons. Safe to say Bigfoot doesn't exist except for in the dreams of the mentally deluded.
ReplyDeleteyawn...don't you have your own blog to prattle on,steven?Anyone get a good bigfoot pic lately?(not camper video please.)
ReplyDeleteCertainly no one is forcing you to read and prattle on yourself, Rumferlife, about me simply expressing my own opinions, which Shawn happened to like and post a part of, above. Go out and get that picture of Bigfoot, if you want it so badly. Certainly I am not stopping you from doing so.
Deletenor are you providing anything in the way of evidence or entertainment for that matter,guess I'll go out and kill me a squatch,peace.
ReplyDeleteAnd millions looked on as the Straw Man Streufert became so jealous of MK Davis that he popped.
ReplyDeleteHa,he looks up to MK?Well he should,at least that guy puts something out there.
DeleteIt is always wise to get your facts straight before speaking.
DeleteUnfortunately, most do not.
Such as MK, and the Anonymous above, who clearly has no idea what the Straw Man Fallacy even is.
yeah,I neglected to read your autobiography,and you being so famous and all.My bad.
DeleteYou certainly are not required to read my biography or know who I am. None of that matters. However, why say ANYTHING if you don't know what you are even talking about? If you're going to make a quip, why not at least make it an informed one?
DeleteJealous of MK? No. I feel sorry for him, really. He's a nice guy, and seems to be suffering under some serious need to see Sasquatch in everything, and to get attention for theories that have no substantiation in actual fact. I'm not saying he is crazy, but I do constantly have to ask myself, Why Does He Do These Things?
Streufert, I must say you absolutely rocked the kneesocks at the spaghetti cookout jamboree thingy.
ReplyDeleteLike a sir.
The problem with "Bigfoot research" is that it is dominated by unqualified idiots with an over abundance of equally unqualified opinions, this is personified in people like Matt Moneymaker. Most of these people are far from being educated professionals, just load mouthed morons like again, Matt Moneymaker. If you want to "research" something and be taken seriously, get an education, learn to speak English properly, and try not to come across as just another overly enthusiastic, subjective idiot.
ReplyDeleteMK is LAMe the crap he puts out makes the whole BF subject seem silly, Steven takes a very logical approuch to the subject, he could easly say i see them all the time aroung Willow Creek. but he doesn't. unlike alot of people down south who have countless encounters in the woods of Georgia or Alabama with nothing to show for it. I hope one day steven gets a good clear look at one he deserves it.
ReplyDeleteMK's seen one,so has Joe Black and they don't even live in the woods...someone feeling bigfoot envy here?
DeleteAnyone can CLAIM to have seen a Bigfoot. The question is, did they REALLY see one? Joe has seen blobs, from what I can tell, and he sees them in digital photographs AFTER the fact. MK saw some quadrupedal thing cross a road. I'd bet if I were there in the car with MK I would have seen a deer, a bear, or a boar. I've seen and heard things in the woods that MIGHT have been Sasquatch, but I won't go around saying that is what they were without an knowing for sure that is what they were. I've had something right in the forest around my cabin that might have been one, but I couldn't get a sight on it on that dark night. So, I don't claim it was a Bigfoot, even though the ground shook as it came down the hill, and there were foot-shaped depressions in the plants leading away from where it came down. There needs be no "envy" about these things, besides, as really it seems largely a matter of luck (or personal disposition of belief and interpretation) whether one encounters one. In many cases, it is clear, the mind makes the Sasquatch be there. The difficult thing is knowing for sure. That is what I am talking about, above.
DeleteHave you ever put your dick in a meat grinder and think it's not a great idea right after you turn the switch to the on position?
ReplyDeleteIts sad when goth kids don't grow up.
ReplyDeleteI'm with u Steven..stay cool..!!
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness to Steve he does have a point about bigfoot sightings occurring from cars and such so not every word is prattle,okay Steve..we cool?
ReplyDeleteNone of it is "prattle," Rumfer. By your standards, everything would be "prattle," including your own statements. If you don't like talking about these issues, just move on to something else. If you really want to be "cool," then OK, be cool. Otherwise, what you seem to be saying above is that we should just not talk about anything at all, and then why should we even have this blog with its comments? We could all just go home and watch football, or something, right?
DeleteWe ain't cool then..ok thin skin...guess that wasn't anonymous attacking old Joe and mk...cute trick backing yourself up.
ReplyDeleteDude, AGAIN you speak without KNOWING of which you speak. No, that wasn't me pretending to be Anonymous, and no, I'm only discussing the topic above and pointing out to you that there is a fallacy in your thinking. That is not in the least me having a "thin skin." If you say something in a discussion the basic idea is that others will respond to it, right? OK, and I did. So what? It is the sign of a troll when he can only take pot shots without substantiation. That is what you are doing, again and again.
DeleteBasic analysis will show you that this is not my writing, and not my perspective:
Delete"AnonymousMonday, October 15, 2012 5:51:00 PM PDT
A perfect example of a Looney toon Bigfoot researcher is Joe black. Check his latest video where he describes how all his trail cameras were disabled by Bigfoot. Somehow managed to get ZERO pictures of this happening even though there was like 6 cameras all pointing to each other. I'm not making this up this guy actually believes what he's saying. This is bigfooting folks and it's a joke full of Looney toons. Safe to say Bigfoot doesn't exist except for in the dreams of the mentally deluded."
Why lie about it?
ReplyDeleteExactly. That is why I have no reason to lie about it, and am not lying about it. It is really rather simple: Joe Black and MK have A LOT of critics. I don't need to impersonate one to make my case.
DeleteI'm the anonymous posting b cool..!! It's not mk or anybody like that, just saying..??
ReplyDeleteno,you post so to back your case,you know steve the more you go on the more I realize just how little you do know.I guess I'll end this by calling bullshit on any knowledge you think you have about the elusive bigfoot,since in reality you are obviously clueless like the majority of people.Congratulations on not calling a deer a bigfoot,I do the same when my dog is in the yard so we have something in common.I like this sight but as I get a little more into the bigfoot world even I'm surprised at the egos of you so called experts,making up shit and putting it out there as fact.I like joe and mk,so does shawn it seems since he posts a lot more from them than he does from you.I think I'll file you away im ol' file 13 with Rick Dyer.Have a good life in your cabin in the woods,its a very cool unabomber like lifestyle.Peace
ReplyDeleteWhat "case" do you want me to "back up"? I was expressing my opinions about research and what I have seen of it. I have seen some silly things claimed as "research" and "evidence." I never claim to be an expert. However, I know a bear track when I see one, and I've seen many presented as Bigfoot tracks. You are, actually, willfully missing the point, and just being an ass. Whatever. Go live your own life, and shut up about mine, as you know nothing about it, and only speak from ignorance. It is clear that your one purpose here is to be annoying. What is the point of that? So what if you "like" MK and Joe? Is THAT the point of research, that you "like" it? I suppose there is no hope for you, then. Like what you like. It's a free country.
DeleteGentlemen please, there is no need for argument. If you ever took the time to listen to the great Matt Moneymaker, you would have heard him say, "There are such things as Bigfootses". Case closed as far as I am concerned, because he is so damn brilliant, he has said that too.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's the knowledable one trolling in the mk comments. Proving himself a hypocrite and a bufoon.you really need to shut up.
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world are you talking about? Trolling? What "MK comments"? Where? Perhaps you are imagining things now, just like old MK? Certainly you are speaking with no other basis whatsoever.
Delete