Leaderboard

Pushback from members who didn't like me asking simple, straightforward questions to clear up a discrepancy in a witnesses' testimony. I was amazed that when I noticed a logical contradiction in two separate accounts of the same incident, given by the same witness (who, btw I never accused of hoaxing), and then asked for clarification, I was told variously that it didn't matter, that I should just forget about it, etc. I was even maligned and accused of being a control freak. After that, I thought a poll might prove interesting. I was not incorrect.

Bonehead...it is a fool's errand, plain and simple, and it stifles the sharing of information to boot. It has here on many, many occasions. You are not going to know if BF exists or not by chasing the latest hoax, and if you think you can conclusively prove a hoax by pounding on a keyboard you are really kidding yourself. I understand the urge and exhilaration that comes with wanting to score points as the smartest kid on the block, but it accomplishes exactly "zip" as far as establishing existence goes or convincing others of that. If you think something is a hoax, fine. The urge to convince others of their gullibility is what grates. Even worse than that, skirting around the alleged dishonesty or just plain stupidity of someone who is disclosing their evidence is only an opportunity to p.o. somebody...which you did prove recently. (If any failed to see that at work in the late NWAC thread, they need to get out more) As I mentioned in that thread, all that really does is assure that there is lots of other evidence that won't be shared with you or anyone else. If that is what you want, keep it up. We are all probably capable of drawing elementary conclusions on our own. We all have a search engine, and if we need to delve into it further, we know how to do it. Go play hoax vigilante somewhere else would be my take on it, and give it a rest here. Sorry to be so blunt, but you did ask.

I think the point is that it's not immediately obvious some of the time that a hoax is a hoax to lots of people, especially those who really desperately want something to be true. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the jist of this topic was that the Bigfoot Community should kind of 'self regulate' and investigate potential hoaxes if something is suspect. From a 'sat on the fence' point of view if the BF community debunked some hoaxes and were prepared to say how and why, that would only be good for the perception of the community as an objective group. To be fair, I have seen some debunking from very staunch believers - notably on the Todd Standing issues. This does no harm at all and if anything in my view enhances the integrity of those individuals.

Unfortunately, I doubt most members of this community can really investigate to the level necessary to prove a hoax. Some folks are fanatical hoax busters, and seem more into that than actually finding bigfoot or proof of. It's a full time job just doing one or the other. Ultimately proving a hoax is just a matter of what seems obvious to the observer of all the facts, and a lot of times, there just isn't enough of those and a flurry of raging opinions that don't amount to a fact. To each his own here and what they want to expend their time and energy on.

I voted no, no because of a lot of what SY said on page one and also no because it's different needs for different folks. The folks without a sighting etc are desperate for something to chew on so will of course vote yes as they're so hungry for something! anything to get their teeth in to whereus the people that have seen them I highly doubt would think that the research community has any type of responsibility to do this at all and even if it did have, the people that do the investigating generally aren't qualified to do it accurately anyway. People also have to remember that the average Sasquatch witness can't have much else than extraordinary claims because what they saw was quite extraordinary. They can't always get evidence of their encounter/sighting and more often than not can't as a lot of the time they don't know how. To then have a small army of unqualified people then "investigate" them and their story, well all I can say is no one it's thought that the number of actual reported % of sightings of these things are so low. I don't think witnesses should be subjected to this type of thing personally, it's not fair firstly and secondly, it will deter people from reporting their encounter/sighting, make no mistake, and I don't think that's a good thing.

^If they're hoaxing then they're actually harming their own reputation. Also why go in the woods? Isn't Bigfoot supposed to be everywhere including urban areas? How is a walk around town any different than going in the woods as far as Bigfoot hunting goes?

Which “truth†do you want? Do you want to know whether Bigfoot truly exists, and if so, what Bigfoot is like? Or do you want to know whether Person A did -- or did not -- have the experience Person A says he did? Do you see the difference between those things? One is big, and the other is very, very small. Why are you going after a small, insignificant truth? Why do you care about Person A? Knowing whether Person A did (or did not) do something (or see or hear or experience something) tells you nothing about the subject of Bigfoot. It only tells you about Person A. There is no piece of information about Bigfoot that’s known to only one person. Many people have seen tracks. Many people have smelled strong odors in the woods. Many people have seen eye glow. Many people have heard (and recorded) howls and calls. Many people have heard wood knocks. Many people have heard speech in known human languages. Many people have heard speech in unknown languages. Many people have received gifts. Many people have seen BF with animals. Many people have heard mindspeak. Many people have seen BF vanish into, or appear out of, thin air. Many people have even seen a BF. So there is no single person whose testimony is more important than anyone else’s. Therefore, there is no reason to try to establish who is “lying†and who is telling the truth. It’s a meaningless exercise. Again, if there were a single individual who was saying something that nobody else had ever said before, then it might make more sense to try to establish whether that single individual was telling the truth. But that will never be the case, and therefore, it’s a waste of time to try to establish who is trustworthy and who isn’t. So, getting back to the truth thing: If you want to know the truth about BF, and if you think other people are so untrustworthy that they have to be subjected to some kind of vetting process before their information about BF can be believed (which we just established is nonsensical, because that information is widely available from many sources) – then you have only one choice. And your one choice is to go out into the woods and get the information yourself. That’s the only responsible way of getting the “truthâ€. Otherwise, you risk making terrible mistakes: accusing innocent people of wrongdoing and frightening others into silence.

lol, bonehead on a roll here, multiple +s........ imo, there don't seem to be any true experts, more like enthusiasts and celebrity enthusiasts with theories . even the greats and would be greats haven't put up anything concrete / irrefutable or the debate would be over. that's precisely why norse is right about the science community seeing this as a joke. without a tangible reason they're not gonna look very hard at it .... .......and with out science the only ones that care about exposing hoaxing are those enthusiasts ,whether "bleevers" or "scofftics" , because nobody else gives a rip...ymmv.

The only part that isn't an opinion is highlighted in red. Who, exactly, are you calling "ignant"? Unfortunately, one of my numerous flaws is that I really don't give a flying crap about the "scientific community" or their opinions. I'll never understand why so many folks are so hell-bent on "science" validating what they already claim to know or believe.

Crow has a point even if we dont like to admit it. This subject is a joke to the scientific community.......one giant hoax. No photo, no plaster track, no eye witness account is going to change that......we need proof. If your not a pro kill advocate? you better figure out a better hair trap or start excavating caves or something.

Not merely not a given, but seemingly ridiculous. To understand why, think about the biological necessities that introduces. Examine Norseman's mule analogy. If bigfoot = mule, a sterile hybrid, then not only is a person ( or horse ) required, but another parent (or donkey) is required, and in large enough numbers to both maintain their own population AND produce these hybrids in large enough numbers to account for the sheer number of reports. If there is another parent species out there, they should be in much greater number than bigfoots, so the odds of finding them should be even higher, yet we haven't. Frankly the only way that could happen is if they are so far beyond us we're as ants in an ant farm to them. Norseman's idea here argues HIGHLY against them being mere apes and should lead him to abandon his pro-kill position if he actually believes it. He's talked himself in a circle IMHO. MIB

Lets see the pic!

I agree, JKH. Arranging natural stuff out in the woods -- and watching what happens to it -- is the quickest way to get confirmation that there are intelligent beings living out there. Once they know that you know that they're there, it becomes a lot of fun (if you're not trying to harm them or "out" them).