TedSallis

The Impact of Hoaxing - Has It Jaded Us Unnecessarily?

71 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, MIB said:

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

 

This is true. I my not BE as skilled as I think I am. But I do know what to look for. Crabwalking-hinding-under-leaf-piles Sasquatch though may not be something I am skilled at noticing. At the same time I'm not simply a trail walker either. At the same time I don't stalk or practice stealth. Shouldn't need to and in bear country don't want to. But again it doesn't make me a skilled bush crafter. Been camping around the Northeast for over 40 years both solo and with others. Haven't been a Sasquatch seeker until about four years ago though. Still have things to hone as far as my woodsmanship but so far? Nada. No muddy prints, no snow prints. no impressions in the leaf duff. A few stick things but no indication they weren't naturally made. No tree knocks or howls. No eye shine, no odors........ I do try.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, norseman said:

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?

Especially when half the people in the woods looking are BFRO types that do those things themselves.       My first footprint did not last 30 minutes.    4 adult humans walked on it and not one noticed it.    In doing so they destroyed the print.     I would think part of the problem in the Eastern states with finding evidence is the sheer number of humans in the woods.   Not only does that make BF more reclusive but evidence like footprints will not last long.       In my experience the best chance of finding anything is go to places where you do not see another human all day.     That is hard to do in many parts of the country. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yet another post that I agree with. There are a lot of Humans in the woods but there are places that have much fewer. I'm looking at a database right now that has 165 reports from the 3 more northern of the Northeast states. I'm very much used to John Green's database format and this one is set up the same way. It's a truly accessible database too in that ALL reports and details are laid out right in front off me. The beauty of that- just like Mr. Green's work- is that one can actually look ahead in the database at the all of the immediate details of each entry. It's a beautiful thing!

 

On internet searches I historically would only find 10 reports for the entire history of Maine. A visit to Loren Coleman's International Cryptozoology Museum allowed that number to swell to 25. This database that I'm looking at currently has 72 Maine reports. So I have work to do ;)

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:52 AM, BigTreeWalker said:

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. 

Most of us use a witness's track record as evidence for/against.  On that score, we have hundreds if not thousands of unimpeachable reports.

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:29 PM, 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.

I don't see a deer every time out.  If you see a bigfoot every time out...you are gonna have to show me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/10/2017 at 9:08 PM, MIB said:

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

 With all due respect when one can enter into that environment and easily encounter the other large fauna bear and moose specifically, and recognize their tracks, their fur sample when found, moose in particular is distinctive, recognize the scat of the animals you know inhabit this region, one can recognize that which isn't normal. I think you assume a bit here.

Edited by starchunk
typo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if Bigfoots do indeed exist they are the rarest of creatures so encountering one would be equally as rare. I've spent many a day and night roaming these East Texas woods hunting, fishing, just wandering around and even did it for a living for awhile and I have one experience that is possibly BF related, so an encounter or experience would generally be a once in a lifetime event. Of course, the more time you spend in the woods the greater your odds are of having such an encounter.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Rockape, a rare creature indeed.  I always raise a little eyebrow when shoes like Finding Bigfoot are in "squatchy" areas every episode.  It presents the topic as being a common every day occurance.  I would venture a guess that a large majority of "signs" are misinterpreted. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perspective on that, if I may?

 

I don't think the bigfoots are evenly distributed.   There are places I go where there seemingly should be activity but so far as I can tell, there isn't, and other places where activity is way beyond statistical average.   So, Finding Bigfoot ... is a bigfoot show, right?   So ... would they deliberately go to a bad place or even an average place when, via Matt, they have the full resources of the BFRO to draw from?   Following so far?    Think about what "squatchy" means ... has the characteristics of places sasquatch have been found before ... right?  

 

So ... thinking this through ... why would the spots they'd go to find a "squatch" not be "squatchy"?    Seems kind of stupid to look in any other sort of spot, doesn't it?

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Twist said:

Well said Rockape, a rare creature indeed.  I always raise a little eyebrow when shoes like Finding Bigfoot are in "squatchy" areas every episode.  It presents the topic as being a common every day occurance.  I would venture a guess that a large majority of "signs" are misinterpreted. 

Twist

When I think about this long enough and I do. The things I have seen and the things that have happened to me and I just mean me. I come up with that some one must be hoaxing me. But then I find my self alone in these areas where no one has no idea where I am at. How can one misinterpret the signs that clearly left for you to find. Again I could have been hoaxed. But how can one explain coming up to these object that were some how placed knowing that you would walk that exact area.

 

They might be rare for some people but not for others. We can all argue about their existence and say that they do not exist but evidence shows other wise. People are still seeing some thing and reporting it. As far as some thing being squatchy, there does not have be a SaS in that area for it to be squatchy. It is the habitat that makes a place squachy. You just have to be in the right area at the right time .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 There may be squatchy areas,   where they are present in an area for long periods of time.       If you think about it,   BF are most vulnerable to accidental human contact when they are moving from one area to another.     If they are established in an area then they pretty much know when some human comes or goes or if humans do come, where they normally go.  .    But if they are traveling any distance, they increase the likelihood of accidental human contact because they simply may not know you are present in the area, and blunder into you.    The most dangerous human in the woods for them is someone still and not moving or making any noise.    If you are tree knocking and making howls you are just making life easy for resident BF.     Hunters on deer stands fit in the quiet category.    While that might work,   you might sit in one location for decades and never see anything.      Simply because BF may have preferred travel routes, even in a local area, and might not come anywhere near a given deer stand.

 

Hoaxers do not leave stuff where it is unlikely to be found.   The further you get away from trails, stream banks,  or roads, the less likely something found is put there to hoax simply because the hoaxer knows it is unlikely to be found back in the bush someplace.  .       Those in groups, or that confide in friends or relatives where they go into the field are the most vulnerable to hoaxing.    More than one Squatcher has had some brother-in-law hoax them just to have a laugh at their expense.       

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny.  In my feed, this thread shows up right above the one for Grandpa's old-timey 1960s photos of bigfoot.  As someone who was a young whipper-snapper in the 1960s, I'm a bit aghast that the decade is now one inhabited solely by "grandpas." 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

Twist

When I think about this long enough and I do. The things I have seen and the things that have happened to me and I just mean me. I come up with that some one must be hoaxing me. But then I find my self alone in these areas where no one has no idea where I am at. How can one misinterpret the signs that clearly left for you to find. Again I could have been hoaxed. But how can one explain coming up to these object that were some how placed knowing that you would walk that exact area.

 

They might be rare for some people but not for others. We can all argue about their existence and say that they do not exist but evidence shows other wise. People are still seeing some thing and reporting it. As far as some thing being squatchy, there does not have be a SaS in that area for it to be squatchy. It is the habitat that makes a place squachy. You just have to be in the right area at the right time .

 

I do not doubt an area that has a bf hanging around for a bit or possibly long term would show signs.  I'm still thinking this is rare occurrence and many of what may be suspected as BF signs are possibly misinterpreted. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

 

When I think about this long enough and I do. The things I have seen and the things that have happened to me and I just mean me. I come up with that some one must be hoaxing me. But then I find my self alone in these areas where no one has no idea where I am at. How can one misinterpret the signs that clearly left for you to find. Again I could have been hoaxed. But how can one explain coming up to these object that were some how placed knowing that you would walk that exact area.

 

They might be rare for some people but not for others. We can all argue about their existence and say that they do not exist but evidence shows other wise. People are still seeing some thing and reporting it. As far as some thing being squatchy, there does not have be a SaS in that area for it to be squatchy. It is the habitat that makes a place squachy. You just have to be in the right area at the right time .

 

Can I ask you what you mean by things you've seen?

 

 

I'm very new into this but what got me very interested  these past two weeks are photos a coworker showed me he was finding for 5 years on his property and beyond.

It was just a conversation about the outdoors, fishing , hunting  and I happened to ask him what he thought of the existence of Bigfoot . I had never asked him that before or even mentioned  anything about it.

 

That's when he said he's had things happen at his home that were pretty strange including a what he believes was a night time encounter . He then said he started taking photos of the things he was finding . He showed me and the photos are pretty crazy.

  He's close to my age in his 50's . He has since sold the property but still has access to the area so we have talked about it and decided

to start exploring the site again in the spring time  . I'm actually pretty excited about it. He never had any type of good equipment but I'm a person who has some pretty good stuff when it comes to night vision .

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Content
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have a lazy streak in them in regards to movement and migration. If they find a place they like they stay there. If they know you know they're in a certain area they won't leave much in the way of sign. Sign can be misinterpreted but I don't think it should be glossed over or trivialized either. That's my take on it but I can only draw from what I experienced.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Twist said:

 

I do not doubt an area that has a bf hanging around for a bit or possibly long term would show signs.  I'm still thinking this is rare occurrence and many of what may be suspected as BF signs are possibly misinterpreted. 

I've made the point, previously, that an animal or animals weighing several hundreds of pounds would necessarily leave distinct sign of their existence in a given area. There must be an impact on the local flora / fauna.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites