Leaderboard

I've posted this before, but since it is coming up again, I will throw it out. I wrote this up last year to profile hoaxers to see if they could be categorized. Here goes: Baseline- With the advent of social media and portals such as Youtube, hoaxers have access to a virtual unlimited audience. This access provides added incentive to continue the hoax and increase the recognition. Recognition is the key element to a hoax and is the driving component which ties them all together. I. Classification of hoaxers- Professional: This level of hoaxer is motivated by the possibility of obtaining a profit from the hoax. The professional tends to have a high level of understanding of the subject matter and will go to extensive lengths to produce a believable and convincing incident. The incident will receive a very high level of scrutiny and will need to be able to withstand a critical analysis by others with knowledge of the subject. Since the motivation is profit and the professional knows the hoax will eventually be discovered as a ruse, obtaining the profit quickly will be a key. The hoaxer will seek a source willing to pay for exclusive access to the incident, probably with a local or national news organization. The professional will hold themselves out as an expert on the subject and profess to have an extensive background, which will add credibility to the incident. Credibility is a key to being able to sell the incident to an unsuspecting audience. Serial: The serial hoaxer is motivated more by obtaining attention than by the possibility of obtaining a profit. The attention garnered can be either positive or negative. This person will attempt to hide behind a false identity and use many aliases since quantity is more important to ensure the lineage can be continued. Timing of the release of the incident to the public will be quick. The method of exposure will be to the widest possible audience. Silly: This level has no regard for sophistication and is only motivated by getting a laugh. The hoax is usually obvious and ultimately harmless to the cause. The hoaxer doesn’t try and hide behind an alias and will publish multiple incidents. The release will be sporadic and usually on a medium that is easiest to access. Warhol: This level of hoaxer is only seeking recognition and the attention that comes with it. They are looking for their 15 minutes of fame and are not seeking to profit and have no intention of doing it in the future. Nefarious: The level of hoaxer has a grudge with a person or the subject and intends harm to the overall reputation by perpetrating a sophisticated hoax that will eventually be revealed. The hoax will be in line with the professional hoaxer by obtaining acceptance by the community and then coming clean with the intent to discredit the entire group. The release will be to a very narrow audience where immediate acceptance can be obtained allowing for a high degree of credibility. II. Types of Incidents- · Video · Still Pictures: · Prints or impressions (Foot, Hand, Body) · Stick Structures · Audio · Eyewitness Testimony · Biological Evidence (Hair, Saliva, Scat, Skin) III. Type of Hoax- Direct: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and releasing it for consumption. Indirect: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and having a third party view it and ultimately report it. This method is reliant upon the third party to act upon what was witnessed and removes the hoaxer from the incident and all trails leading to them. IV. Target Audience- General populace: This approach allows for the greatest coverage only requiring a single individual to witness the hoax and release it for consumption. Specific Individual: This method will focus the incident at locations the hoaxer knows an individual will frequent. Since recognition is needed by the individual, the hoaxer will have knowledge of the individual’s schedule along with the location. V. Analysis- In the event of an incident, analysis needs to be done based upon varying factors to determine whether a hoax exists or if the evidence is plausible for an actual event.

You folks need to talk to a few people who have been stalked and menaced by bigfoot. They have the capability to be either helpful, benign, threatening, or an outright menace. Depends on the bigfoot, depends on the day. May depend on whether it's male or female. I, and many others who have encountered them over the years believe that they do, on occassion, prey on humans. Not all of them, and not all of the time, but some apparently do. They are, first and foremost, predators. They are also the ultimate lurkers. They don't avoid us, yet hang out and watch us all the time because they're drawn to us against their better judgement. This is the behavior of an ambush predator. It is also the behavior of a thief who watches where you keep your valuables (food), studies your activity patterns, and learns and waits for the best opportunity to steal your food. They're supremely adapted to prey on us. We socially and technically evolved to defend against them (community size, community defense, and weaponry). Agriculture and animal husbandry changed this. Gradually, it became more profitable for them to look upon us as a source of food, than as food. But out in the woods, where it's not a choice of our crops and livestock or us, it's simply a matter of "The noisy fools just scared of the deer I was going to eat. Oh, well, the young one will do." They're smart and they are as capable of performing a risk/reward calculation as we are. If they think they can get away with it, the chances they will do it are greater. They know we'll mount a search and scour the area. They know we'll assemble, organize, and use our "stuff" to make the area where the kid disappears uncomfortable. But look at it this way. What family group in its right mind is going to take up residence in a park where hundreds of people come and go regularly? None. If one decides to take a kid, it's group is a ways a way to begin with, so not at risk, the kid is entirely portable, and by the time we get our act together, it's long gone with the kid. I find the following analysis reasonable. They're almost always hungry. They're always on the lookout for food. If one travels into a park, they're looking for food. They'll steal our camp food given the chance, they raid a dumpster just as readily. But to some bigfoot, the untended kid will do just as well, the bigfoot just has to decide that he's bee-lining out of there after the grab. So how many of us look at them as just animals? How many of them look at us as just troublesome, but potential food. If all of them preyed on people, I'd be long dead. But I'm convinced that a couple of times I was just lucky. Oh, and on the subject of setting aside territory for them, all well and good....but what keeps them out of our territory? Especially since they have adapted to take advantage of our food sources? You can keep us away from them, but you can't keep them away from us.