TedSallis

The Impact of Hoaxing - Has It Jaded Us Unnecessarily?

68 posts in this topic

On 2/13/2017 at 7:03 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No pictures or videos will ever be accepted as proof.  I have seen as we all have compelling pictures and videos.

Not just the Patterson film. To be truly accepted by science and the general public only a specimen will do.

To answer the question, I would say the countless number of hoaxes have affected the legitimacy of the subject.

 

Plussed!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, hoaxing is insignificant.  It is only dwelt upon by those unfamiliar with the breadth and depth of the evidence.  It's not worth considering.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The effect it should have is vigilance I would think. Any evidence found should should consider potential hoaxing as a cause.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or it's a misidentification of something else.

 

I see very little solid evidence if we are to believe a large population of 800 lbs ape men roams the continent from coast to coast.

 

Obviously the little solid evidence we do have is intriguing...and keeps us going I suppose.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right Norseman. If there wasn't something compelling there, even with all the hoaxes, then why are we even bothering? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all gluttons for punishment?  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 2/26/2017 at 5:03 PM, DWA said:

Oh, hoaxing is insignificant.  It is only dwelt upon by those unfamiliar with the breadth and depth of the evidence.  It's not worth considering.

 

Ash: Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures.

army-of-darkness.jpg

Edited by Incorrigible1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 6:48 PM, starchunk said:

The effect it should have is vigilance I would think. Any evidence found should should consider potential hoaxing as a cause.

Sure.  If evidence suggests a hoax.  But it's not rational to assume hoaxing as a possible reason for all this evidence.  And contrary to popular belief, the *least likely* cause is the oft-cited "hoaxes hallucinations and honest misidentifications."  The odds against various causes coming together to add up to what we're seeing are far longer than if one postulates only one possible cause. You simply are not going to get the consistency we see with a whole bunch of random generators.  The consistency says:  either one agency is causing all these false positives...or they point to the thing to which they appear to point.

We're still talking about P/G being a hoax, when no one has been able to postulate a means by which humans could have done it.  "Easy:  guy made a suit and put in footprints" isn't an explanation, any more than "the sun's a heatlamp that NASA put up there" is.  One has to show, in detail, HOW it could have been done.

Edited by DWA
clarifying
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DWA said:

The consistency says:  either one agency is causing all these false positives...or they point to the thing to which they appear to point.

 

Correct.   The consistency of reports, not precisely identical, but with details providing scatter along a bell curve with appropriate distribution means, without (intelligent, informed) question, either the reports truly describe what they appear to describe, or they require a COORDINATED hoaxing effort crossing several -> many hundreds of years producing well over 100,000 reports.   This is a colossal effort, requires many people across many generations, and absolute "shut down" security because nobody, so far as I know, has claimed to be part of such a conspiracy, never mind providing evidence to support their claim.

 

MIB

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flip side of the hoaxing coin also to leads to the fallacious conclusion that everyone who spends time in the outdoors and has a sighting or finds evidence is incompetent. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

^^ Agree. There's an awful lot of smart, experienced people out there both looking and not looking for Sasquatch. Really doubt ALL of them are out of the same mold that misidentifies large animals and don't know when something is not a bear. Sighting the extremely rare earless, snoutless "bear" though? Surprise! - not a bear.   

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2017 at 11:59 AM, hiflier said:

^^ Agree. There's an awful lot of smart, experienced people out there both looking and not looking for Sasquatch. Really doubt ALL of them are out of the same mold that misidentifies large animals and don't know when something is not a bear. Sighting the extremely rare earless, snoutless "bear" though? Surprise! - not a bear.   

 

As one who does spend a good deal of time looking in what could be considered real wilderness (Green and White Mountains), many a trip comes up empty. Its equally true to look at someone who claims to have evidence every single time with some suspicion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

As one who does spend a good deal of time looking in what could be considered real wilderness (Green and White Mountains), many a trip comes up empty. Its equally true to look at someone who claims to have evidence every single time with some suspicion.

 

Well said. I am in Maine and have seen nothing- even sign, I've also been in both the Maine and NH Whites as well as the southern portion of the Green Mountains of VT. Nothing. If they are anywhere there aren't many and I think there has not been many for long time. Very hard to imaging anything even close to a sustainable population.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, just for the sake of argument, you're not nearly as skilled at recognizing sign as you give yourself credit for and it's been right under your nose all along.   There's a learning curve.  Nobody starts at the top.  People who assume they do never get there at all.   Rather than learn to see for themselves they dismiss what others have learned to see.

 

MIB

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless.....the sign has to lead you the PRIZE. Hard tangible proof. 

 

We could go on for the next thousand years identifying tree breaks and wood knocks as sign. And what good would that do?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites