TedSallis

The Impact of Hoaxing - Has It Jaded Us Unnecessarily?

72 posts in this topic

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. 

 

2 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

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.

 

I agree totally with both of you. Animals leave sign. Bigger animals bigger sign. Big rare animals, rare sign- but sign none the less. Foraging on plants is pretty basic sign. Game trails, broken underbrush, a pine forest with low branches broken off between close-growing trees, scat, prints etc.. All of these things are the obvious signs. Better trackers will find lesser sign like hair snagged in bark. But there will be and should be sign, especially from the larger creatures.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, my earlier statement about misinterpretation was in regards to those that seem to find "squatchy" signs in any forest they enter. I.e. Every stick structure is a squatch or every tree broken off at "X" feet above ground is a squatch.  My mindset is that entering a forest all of those signs will start off as the most basic and common explanation.

 

For the record I have no one in mind in particular in regards to them finding BF signs everywhere, just talking in general.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A good, practical, cautionary approach. This kind of approach should be in the back of everyone's mind. Such natural knowledge gained is important in that it will be of great value when running across things in the field that seem outside the norm. How does one determine that unless the first go to is assessing if sign is what would naturally be expected? An area that may be termed squatchy could also equally be determined to be "beary-y" even when it comes to a large Human-like print. Good knowledge and experience of "bear-y" and "moose-y" things will help greatly in setting limits to sign that could either be misleading- OR -the real thing. More than one person has been fooled by nature's more common creatures.

 

Experience will tell one this early Spring whether or not large prints in a wetland skunk cabbage patch is from a bear that is hungry from the winter. Bears also use the skunk cabbage as a cathartic to help pass the leaf plug in their digestion track created in the Fall before hibernation. In some locations a bear's diet can be as much as 90% skunk cabbage shoots when coming out of winter.  

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 7.62 said:

 

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 .

7.62

Best time to explore is all day from early morning to dawn and at night. The things I have seen are these structures that have been built over night and my bait pile being gone the same night I placed it. Same goes with tracks and have learned to find them at night with a flash light. They love salmon so take them some but be safe with bears. Have fun and have them find you and not you find them. If you feel that some thing is behind a tree, walk to it to get it to move. they do not expect it from humans.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Best time to explore is all day from early morning to dawn and at night.

 

Precisely.

 

Edited by Incorrigible1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, Twist said:

Agreed, my earlier statement about misinterpretation was in regards to those that seem to find "squatchy" signs in any forest they enter. I.e. Every stick structure is a squatch or every tree broken off at "X" feet above ground is a squatch.  My mindset is that entering a forest all of those signs will start off as the most basic and common explanation.

 

My approach is a little different, a little more open-minded in both directions.   I don't want to jump on the kool aid bandwagon but I don't want to throw out babies hidden in the bathwater, either, so I try to avoid both confirmation bias and "anti-confirmation" bias with equal care.   That just means examining everything with equal effort to avoid ALL premature conclusions.   (edit to add: of course, to some, this attempt at balance, rather than sharing their biased bandwagon, is itself a form of bias.)

 

I've found a total of two suspicious tree twists ... ever.   I'm still on the fence about them looking for REASONABLE alternate explanations, not just convenient dismissal.   I've heard 3 wood knocks ... ever.  The rest rest of a lifetime worth of clicks, pops, bangs, thumps, etc ... bettin' against.    Only once have I found deliberately braided stuff.    That was weird, it was strung for at least a quarter, maybe even a half mile down a ridge I've hunted hundreds of times.   There, one day, out of the blue, a lot of viney stuff seemed braided yet overhead, there was no sign of significant wind.   I went back the next day.   Everything was normal, the same yet subtly different, nothing braided or abnormally arranged.    It's hard to convey just how subtle, and yet for someone really familiar with the location, how unmistakable, that change was.

 

Hmmm ... one thing, I think we are using the term "squatchy" different.  Among my friends that's not a term that's used but the concept exists.   The idea, among "us", is that the location has characteristics that suggest it has greater than background probability of sasquatch being there or evidence being found, not that anything has actually been found.   In other words, it describes a place that is similar to past places evidence has been found.   You seem (to me) to be suggesting it means that a concentration of subtle evidence or sign is being seen.  Is that what you mean or did I misunderstand?

 

MIB

 

Edited by MIB
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No your dead right about how I was using the word.  I do however believe your meaning to make more sense.  

 

I've only had my one possible experience to date and nada since then.  I keep an eye out and seen odd things but I've left them all unclassified in my mind.  No evidence to move the needle in any direction let alone towards the abnormal.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience there are areas where conditions are similar to known active areas, one could call them 'squatchy', but just like Maine looks like Oregon, they are very different with respect to flora and fauna.            But repeat trips to these "squatchy"  areas have not produced any evidence they are active.     I pretty much have discounted wood sign: crossed poles, snqp off,   tepee looking constructs etc.   Not that they could not be sign but simply because when I had an active area going,  nothing of that nature was evident in the area.    I can only conclude that such things are regional in nature or perhaps creations of a tribe of BF into making things.     Human presence may be the difference also.     A reclusive tribe of sentient beings may be full aware that if they built a tepee structure,  for whatever reason,  that is evidence they are around.      My former active area was fairly active with humans recreating with some seasonal  human presence.   Perhaps my BF tribe decided that they could not risk such construction because it gave them away.      Where as deep in Skamania County,  and human presence is rare,  BF may well do things with wood structures.     I cannot shake the gut feeling that deep in the National Forest in some of the designated Wilderness areas,  there are literally villages of BF, back in some remote canyons.      There are tantalizing,  signs of  trails visible from the air in remote forested areas,   that are not on any map.       Close looks from the air,   do not reveal any sign they were made by man.     But it is hard to tell from the air.      Log roads 75 years ago were not what they are now.     It takes boots on the ground to really know.     That would be a good project for a young active researcher.    Take satellite images, compare known trails and roads on USGS charts to the images, and go boots on the ground to find out what is really there if the USGS does not know something is there.        Satellite images have reaped many discoveries in the last few years.      Unknown ancient villages,   unknown pyramids in Egypt,    and lost cities in the Amazon.     Why not bigfoot trails or villages?  

 

Vocalizations are very rare.     Otherwise we would have hundreds of recordings.     Tree knocks cannot be counted on as evidence of presence.       Some of both are us,  thanks to BFRO.     Some are natural.     Several knocks I have heard turn out to be a tree knocking against another now and then when a the wind gust moved it.   Now and then a spastic woodpecker will get me going.    Oh I check them out,   but they have never led to anything.      

 

But my experience with active areas;    there are a few things in common:.        Running water, year round, or nearly year round.  Lots of cover.    Presence of deer and/ or elk.       At or near the snow line in the winter.    Footprint finds are the gold standard of active.     An active area will reveal footprints finds if you get into the field enough when the ground is soft enough for them to be left.       If a BF left a footprint,   it was there, at least that time of year.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a possible interesting twist on this question.  

 

There have been some well-publicized hoaxes and/or Bigfoot researchers stepping in the Bigfoot droppings (angel DNA, anyone?).  In addition, some aspects of how the Finding Bigfoot show is produced might create a negative, rather than positive, perception of the question of whether Bigfoot exists or not.

 

So the question.  In three areas where I recently finalized (for now) my data - New Hampshire, Maine, and northeastern Canada - there is an arc of increasing sightings through the 2000s, then a steep drop-off of reported sightings in the 2010s.  It's now getting late in this decade.  Is the drop off of reported encounters a sign of fewer Bigfoot or the impact of hoaxes and bad PR?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be the result of ... I don't like the term sensationalism in this context but I lack a better word ... the thought pattern may be that, recognizing these things are happening, people may not need as much help processing their experience or may not think their experience is unique and interesting enough to be worth reporting.    In other words, it may reflect sightings seeming more commonplace, less noteworthy, thus less report-worthy as well.

 

The other thing, if you rely on BFRO reports, is that they never publish without investigating.   It's possible they're having problems getting enough investigators to look into the reports in those areas.    That has been suggested as the case for south-central Washington, for instance.   It may be that the reports are coming in as fast as ever, they're just not published because nobody is doing the followup.

 

MIB

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoaxing has a lot of impact on skeptics for sure.    Based on my experience with the BFRO you are correct that  most of the sightings reported are never published.       Since the BFRO is the only avenue for someone not into BF research to likely know how to report a sighting other than an to law enforcement or the local papers,   it is no wonder that sightings are not reported.      Both the law enforcement route and newspapers,  most likely would be very embarrassing.   Law enforcement will always assume that you were on drugs or intoxicated.      The papers may assume the same thing but the writer can play it serious or treat you like a fruit loop.     So if the man on the street that does not know about how to report,   it is not likely to that it will have been reported.           

 

If the BFRO has problems having enough investigators,   it is likely because they throw you out without much provocation or people are not willing to pay for the privilege.          Not many organizations that claim to be doing science,    picks investigators based on how much money they have given to the organization.        I expect a howl of protest at that comment but you are only given investigator status in the BFRO after you have paid hundreds of dollars for several expeditions.     Someone like a BF Jane Goodall that knows anything would not even be considered.    The process is more like political appointments than anything else I can think of.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There's a serious flaw in the "they would have to have left sign by now."  If they are there - which evidence (<<<<<<NOTE:  = SIGN) says they are - they do.  Tracks; carcasses bearing markers that don't point to a known animal; and even structures whose provenance doesn't, from available information, appear likely to be human.

 

(Not to mention copious consistent eyewitness testimony, something we trust, it appears, everywhere but here.)

 

A continual pitfall of the skeptics is their insistence that "this would have to have happened" or "this would have to exist."  We have copious evidence, from every single scientific field, not to trust that.  There seems in fact to be copious sign.  It's just not sign left by animals we accept.

Edited by DWA
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites