"hoax Confessors"

[Guest]

I get riled when the "skeptics" use alleged hoax confessors to attempt to buttress their "no BF" position.

Stop and consider this logically:

Either

1) they did indeed hoax BF evidence. That means they are liars.

or

2) they did NOT hoax BF evidence, but are claiming to have done so. This also means that they are liars.

So were they lying then, or are they lying now? Either way, they cannot be trusted. Why should we give ANY "confessor" any evidentiary weight whatsoever?

And yes that includes the infamous Penn and Teller. What proof do we have that they ACTUALLY performed a hoax? They could well just be flacking for their fading careers by injecting themselves falsely into a high-profile BF case.

Now, if they can actually provide affirmative PROOF they were there and responsible for a hoax, then I would accept that they did so. That proof has not been proffered to my knowledge.

[Guest Kerchak]

Good points. Trying to take the word of a hoaxer as gospel is an oxymoron isn't it? Since they, by their own admission, have engaged in activities where they are trying to fool others then what makes their words more truthful? As you say, unless they can demonstrate and prove their claim then it is to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[masterbarber]

And yes that includes the infamous Penn and Teller. What proof do we have that they ACTUALLY performed a hoax? They could well just be flacking for their fading careers by injecting themselves falsely into a high-profile BF case.

Now, if they can actually provide affirmative PROOF they were there and responsible for a hoax, then I would accept that they did so. That proof has not been proffered to my knowledge.

You can't be serious.

Maybe there's a clue in their general attitude toward cryptos.

By the way, I added a link instead of the video because the language used IS NOT PG rated. If you're easily offended then I wouldn't watch it.

Edited November 15, 2010 by masterbarber

[Guest]

^Their "attitude" towards cryptos is not proof of anything.

[Guest]

I get riled when the "skeptics" use alleged hoax confessors to attempt to buttress their "no BF" position.

The fact that people hoax so-called bigfoot evidence does not in any way buttress the position that there is no bigfoot. The lack of a bigfoot specimen does that.

[Guest Kerchak]

^

Stick to the point of the thread please.

[Guest]

^

Stick to the point of the thread please.

Sorry, but the OP contains a strawman fallacy I was addressing: The fact that there are people who claim to have hoaxed bigfoot does not buttress opinion that there is no bigfoot.

Without corroborating evidence that a hoax confessor has hoaxed, there is no mandate to take the confessor's word. That is true. So?

[Guest TooRisky]

Sorry, but the OP contains a strawman fallacy I was addressing: The fact that there are people who claim to have hoaxed bigfoot does not buttress opinion that there is no bigfoot.

Without corroborating evidence that a hoax confessor has hoaxed, there is no mandate to take the confessor's word. That is true. So?

DING DONG... The skeptics calling... All are as usefull as a Avon Rep. at a rodeo...

[Guest fenris]

Their "attitude" towards cryptos is not proof of anything.

It's proof of their agenda and as such is no better than hoaxing.

People to distrust from the getgo:

1) Penn and Teller

2) Georgia Boys

3) Biscardi (Duh..............)

4) Bulletmaker

5) Anyone with a youtube site that doesn't allow comments

6) Anyone else with a clear agenda from the get-go

[Guest TooRisky]

It's proof of their agenda and as such is no better than hoaxing.

People to distrust from the getgo:

1) Penn and Teller

2) Georgia Boys

3) Biscardi (Duh..............)

4) Bulletmaker

5) Anyone with a youtube site that doesn't allow comments

6) Anyone else with a clear agenda from the get-go

Lemme add anyone who hides their identity, yet is one of the most outspoken critics... Remember that chicken farmer awhile back who said he had his PhD and was such the learned skeptic, LOL what a joke... Yeah if you talk the talk ya better be able to back it up with degrees or a badge...

[Guest]

Fenris...I agree with your list with the exception of number 5. Reason being is anyone and everyone can comment on YouTube, as they have no standards what so ever in comment moderation. People can name call and use profanity and frankly allowed to lie if they'd want and I can't blame anyone for disallowing comments.

Just surfing on YouTube and looking at I'd say 65% of the videos that interest me there is always some profane or just plain ignorant remark. So I would not necessarily use that as a hallmark. However I would use, ignoring PM's on YouTube that ask good questions, or by responding to those good questions with a non-response or something flippant.

As to the Sonoma Video... it's shut and closed, no if's, and's or but's. They admitted it and, "Mark Nelson's" story and evidence on "his site," had much to be desired.

Hoaxers I find are falling into several categories;

Profiteers: The Standing's and now even the Ballyhoo's of the world. (I had my doubts on Ballyhoo, but all of a sudden all these ads are popping up over there as well as her promotion of her books). These tend to be drawn out the most

The Gagster: People who get a kick out of getting a rise in people.

The Less Fortunate: People who have issues, such as the people devoid of something in their life make stuff up to foster attention to themselves.

The Predators: Ie: Biscardi. Why I wouldn't put it past their own agenda to create their own hoax. The prey on the prior two, to profiteer and gather attention to themselves. They border on the profiteer motive, but prey on these folks in case it unravels to say, "Hey..it ain't me."

[Guest]

Lemme add anyone who hides their identity, yet is one of the most outspoken critics... Remember that chicken farmer awhile back who said he had his PhD and was such the learned skeptic, LOL what a joke... Yeah if you talk the talk ya better be able to back it up with degrees or a badge...

Yay, an insult and a thinly-veiled callout and we're only on page one!

So are you suggesting that if I furnished you with my diplomas you would suddenly have a deep and profound respect for the opinions I present here on the BFF? I hope not; that would be absurd. Therefore, give up this "better be able to back it up" nonsense, because it truly is irrelevant. Why not judge the content of what people write rather than obsess about who they are and what their background is?

Madame Curie once said (or at least this quote is attributed to her) "Be more curious about ideas, and less curious about people."

[masterbarber]

^Their "attitude" towards cryptos is not proof of anything.

You're right, it's a CLUE

[masterbarber]

Yeah if you talk the talk ya better be able to back it up with degrees or a badge...

Or What? You gonna get all National Guard Bigfoot Pilot on us? How about sticking to the topic and leaving the comedy to the pros.

[Huntster]

Sorry, but the OP contains a strawman fallacy I was addressing: The fact that there are people who claim to have hoaxed bigfoot does not buttress opinion that there is no bigfoot.

That is true, but it's also true that many skeptics use hoaxes as part of their argument against the existence of bigfoot. River has done so on the new BFF many times now.