Leaderboard

I think that inconsistencies should be questioned. But I think there's a right way and a wrong way to do that. Say for example, we have a well known member tell an encounter story. As time goes on, the story changes. Others notice the change. What should happen? Yes, I think questions should be asked. It could just be a misunderstanding. It could be something else. But to go after that member as if they are flat out lying or hoaxing is not the right way to deal with this type of situation, IMO. I'm not talking about obvious hoaxes and hoaxers, who knowingly put out fakes... trying to fool people. I'm talking about people who share personal encounters. I think that there's an odd thing that happens with people who have a sighting (some, not all). They suddenly remember things that they hadn't mentioned. The story starts to evolve.... details change. I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that it's because they are lying/hoaxing. I think other things are at hand. The power of suggestion for one. We had a member who had a sighting. He/She told her story, then someone said, "Sounds like you saw a Dogman". From then on, the story was that he/she saw a dogman. I don't think he/she was intentionally lying before of after the story changed. I think he/she was just trying to make sense of what he/she saw, and since he/she didn't KNOW what he/she saw, it makes for a story that morphs the more times it is told. Does that make him/her a liar or hoaxer? I don't think so. I think a hoaxer is someone who sets out from the start to pass off a fake as the real deal. These others who stories change, I think they are just trying to make sense of what they saw and I don't think they are intentionally being deceptive. I see it all the time on Facebook. People want so badly to be in the knower group, they might see a shadow in the woods, and come back and relate how fully convinced they are that they saw a BF - because they wanted to so badly that they were easily talked into (by themselves) believing that is what they saw. Then as people ask them questions, "What color was it, was it alone" they fill in the blanks... Well, it was black (shadow) and I heard something in another bush, so I bet it was another one". So the story has changed to "I think I saw a BF" to "I had a sighting of 2 black Bigfoots" Does that make sense? I think a LOT of stories evolve from unusual events to full blown encounters.... when the witness still fully believes what they are sharing. But, even though they aren't sharing just the facts of what happened, and are adding misconceptions, and add on memories, they aren't knowingly lying. So should you out this people when you find an inconsistency in their story? Well, you could I guess. But in my opinion, if it is a member here - especially a well known and respected member, I think I would PM them and point out the inconsistencies and ask them what they think could have happened along the way to have caused the story to change. They may have an explanation that makes perfect sense. They may not. If not, then I guess it would be up to you as to whether you want to point it out to the rest of the membership. But at least you are giving that person time to think about it, perhaps realize that they have made a mistake along the way ... and then they can start thinking about what actually happened again and sort it out. I have no sympathy for hoaxers. I think they should be outed. But I think there's a difference. Not all of these people who are telling of encounters whose stories change are out right lying, IMO. And I certainly don't consider those people hoaxers, YMMV

I didn't vote and the reason why is quite ordinary I really don't care if the "bigfoot community" endorses or rejects a report I think that a "bigfoot community" really does not exist except in the broadest sense I think that most people are promoting their own agendas and very few are as objective as they claim At the end of the day when I read an account, if it doesn't pass my bs filters I ignore it If the account passes my filter then I will investigate it further While I do appreciate the time and effort that some people put into sharing the results of their investigations, there are some who I put more weight on then others For me a classic example is a researcher that did an analysis that proved a figure was a real sasquatch, when it was already a know hoax. This analysis showed how he was more of a proponent then an investigator I have no problems exposing hoaxers, and will continue doing what I am doing, and I think most people are the same

southernyahoo, on 14 Apr 2015 - 7:38 PM, said: It seems like Todd Standing, the Squatchmaster, the Toe-cutter, and others have been thoroughly vetted on this forum and sufficient evidence has been mustered to show that they are, more likely than not, hoaxers. That being said, I agree that the priority of effort should be on producing unequivocal proof of existence or likely non-existence (since you can't prove a negative). Pulling the mask away from the hoaxers and snake-oil salesmen is a secondary, effort, but an important secondary effort. While some information may dry up if claims are vetted thoroughly, more will dry up if the bigfooting community is perceived as a clown show or collection of grifters. In addition, sincere voices and efforts may be drowned out by the carnie barkers.

I don't know what Sykes motivations are. Homoflorensiesis lived up to 12,000 years ago and that is nearly modern times but my point was that a nearly human species in Indonesia is evidence, as Meldrum points out in one of his newer presentations, that it is more common than not in the last 500,000 years that there have been several times when coexisting species of human or near human species lived concurrently, even interbreeding. At one point, 5 different known human or near human species all existed at the same point in time. So if history is a quide, it is more likely than not, that other near human species could exist along with us. But that cannot be argued as evidence that BF is related to any previously known species of humanoids. Size similarities of course point to GP which is ape. So I don't have any idea what they are. I do agree, having interacted in the field that whatever they are, they are intelligent. Skeptics will leap on that statement, but I have not experienced bears, deer, cougars, or wolves, all of whom I have had contact with, playing tricks or games on me. Something intelligent is out there, with what seems to be a sense of humor, is doing that stuff, that does not seem to be human.

SWWASP, I get your skepticism of Sykes motives, but none the less it is relative to the subject. If another subspecies of Humans is proven to have existed till the present time, that certainly opens the door to the possibility of other hominids still existing today. I have to disagree with your assertion. I have been leaning on the fence toward the ape camp for a while, but recent thoughts and research have me moving in the other direction again. I started out thinking that these creatures had a human component, abandoned that idea, and now I have gone full circle. I just cannot explain the intelligence factor any other way, they are simply way too intelligent to be in the ape category from my growing understandings.

I like to be in there at least 2-3 days before season opener.

That misunderstands the issue, although I'll add that it is fair to say that few reported encounters will be resolved conclusively on a message board. You're right to say that a report of a Bigfoot approaching a house in daylight can't be ruled out because we conclusively know that a) Bigfoots are purely nocturnal or Bigfeet stay at least 5 miles away from human population. However, reports can be called into question and perhaps even conclusively determined to be an intentional lie or a sincere, but inaccurate, report. That's done through identifying inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony and documentary (if any) evidence, or by identifying inconsistencies in various versions of their testimony. If you go back in the various threads (some only available in the premium section), its clear that multiple claims that seemed too good to be true have been outed as not true. Its fair to assume that a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny from people who likely would love for a claim to be true is going to be tossed around like a rag doll among those who are hostile to the idea of Bigfoot or who are willing to have a good belly laugh at what the "Bigfoot yokels" are doing now.

Looks like we have to use the full link from the address bar, not the "Share" link...

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.