"hoax Confessors"

[southernyahoo]

To those that claim extraordinary occurrences, I say prove it. Show us something, show us anything. Pardon me if I doubt your claims. A photo will do wonders. No, of course you're not "required," but if you come here proclaiming remarkable things then prove the barest essentials. Is that too much to ask? Evidently it is, since nothing even half worthy has been proffered.

Don't we all agree that something and anything doesn't constitute proof? Can't you see the straw man waving here? Or, is it the wiggling goal post?

ETA: How will you know you are looking at a real photo or video of a sasquatch?

Edited November 16, 2010 by southernyahoo

[Guest River]

Here's part of an interesting article regarding Rant Mullins written by Michael Dennet.

1982 - Rant Mullins, whose name recently appeared in wire service news stories and on national television, has been sending tremors through the "Bigfoot Community." A longtime resident of Toledo, Washington, north of Mount St. Helens, in the heart of Bigfoot territory, Mullins, now 86 says he has tramped the woods since 1910 without seeing a sign of Sasquatch.

In 1924, Mullins and a companion George Ross rolled some rocks onto a cabin along the so-called Ape Canyon on Mt. St. Helens and may have been responsible for Fred Beck's legendary Bigfoot "encounter" (a tale with a number of highly questionable aspects to it). Mullins, a retired logger, disclosed this spring that while working for the Forest Service in 1930, he and some of his friends decided to "have some fun." Mullins fashioned a pair of 9 inch by 17 inch "feet" with a hatchet and a jack-knife from a piece of alder wood. Bill Lambert, who was with Mullins, took the wooden feet to a spot at the base of Mount St. Helens where there were some huckleberry pickers.

According to Mullins, Lambert walked around the pickers' cars making "Bigfoot" prints. Later in the day, when Lambert and Mullins along with others were at the Ranger Station, the pickers came running to them to report the tracks. Mullins lost track of his handiwork from the summer of 1930 until 1948, when Bert Lewis, one of the original hoaxers return them to him. In 1969 he supplied another pair of 16 inch wooden feet to Ray Wallace who allegedly took them to Northern California. Ray Wallace and Rant Mullins were neighbors in Toledo, Washington.

In all, Rant Mullins claims he made eight sets of these wooden feet, most of which went to California. After explaining how he carved them, Mullins displayed his last set for the Skeptical Inquirer. They bore a striking resemblance to the 14.5 inch plaster casts of tracks cast by such famous Bigfoot proponents as Bob Gimlin, Rene Dahinden and Roger Patterson.

[Guest]

Then why (on this very forum even) do "skeptics" attempt to debunk/dismiss proffered evidence (esp tracks and pictures) by saying (paraphrased) "We know that people hoax BF [evidence]). We do not know there is a BF. Therefore the default explanation for [evidence] must be that it is hoaxed, until an actual BF is obtained.."?

Good question, and your paraphrase looks like it might be a verbatim Saskeptic quote. But the distinction is subtle. I was trying to address this statement from the OP:

use alleged hoax confessors to attempt to buttress their "no BF" position.

The fact that people hoax bigfoot is not what makes me skeptical of bigfoot in general, and that's the sentiment I see expressed in the OP. If there was no Heironimous, no Ray Wallace, etc., I'd still be skeptical of bigfoot because we lack a bigfoot body. Confessions of a hoax shouldn't be uncritically accepted, but they also don't occupy a central position in skeptical attitudes toward bigfoot. If there was no confession of hoaxing related to the PGF, I'd still be inclined to think that Roger had somehow hoaxed it. Heironimous isn't the lynchpin to me thinking so, he's just an interesting diversion that gives us a lot more to talk about.

I do think that hoaxing needs to be considered as a default hypothesis to evaluate when considering bigfoot evidence. If we ever get any really good evidence (like a body), it'll be a hypothesis that can be rejected pretty easily.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Writing just for myself . . .

*I've had people politely ask what I do.

*I've had people badger and berate me as someone obviously inexperienced "in the woods."

*In a couple of instances, I have described my background to make a specific point, e.g., to share the fact that I had delivered a bigfoot lecture on a college campus to illustrate the widespread interest in the topic among real wildlife biologist types.

*I may have posted some comments on the BFF to the effect of "if Meldrum and I have similar levels of education and position, why accept his statements uncritically yet reject mine out of hand?" Reading those comments in context, however, my intent was clearly an illustration of the "argument from authority" fallacy and not a bragging session to bolster my own rhetoric.

So there are times when I've felt it appropriate to provide that perspective, but I always try to make the parallel point that we should judge the merit of comments by the degree to which they make sense and are supported by evidence, not by the gravitas of the person who delivered the comment. There are times when it's important to seek an expert's opinion specifically because that person is an expert, but we always need to vigilant to the propensity to give a so-called expert's opinion greater weight simply because the person is an expert - that's a recipe for committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Saskeptic, there's no need to explain why you do not wish to reveal your identity or credentials old buddy. It's not required for anyone to reveal anything of a personal nature here. Anyone that argues someone else's point is invalid simply because that person chooses to remain out of the public eye, needs to sharpen up their debate skills a little cause that's not much of a counter. Let's all try to keep in mind that we're not required to show a photo ID, or prove what we do for a living before signing into the BFF. So please don't demand these things from others. I'm proud to have Saskeptic here with us. I may not agree with him much , but I'm still proud he's here. Chris B.

[Guest]

If I had not seen a Bigfoot, I would be a skeptic.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 16 November 2010 - 09:20 AM, said:

2) While the crop circle phenomenon was going on, the United States Air Force (the appropriate government agency) was just finishing their decades long investigations (under several different project names) into the UFO phenomenon. American wildlife management agencies have yet to begin any investigation into sasquatchery like the Air Force investigated UFOs or extraterrestrial intelligence.

And the respective budgets of the USAF and "wildlife management agencies" make that a valid comparison . . ?

The respective budgets could be similar, if "wildlife management agencies" would hurry up and finish learning the "crisis management" lessons that the military learned in the 1770's. Granted, with the AGW issue and ESA, they've got it figured out, but they just aren't using such "crises" fully.

A bipedal North American ape going extinct should be a wildlife crisis of the highest magnitude ........

(I'm just trying to keep you occupied, Huntster.)

(I'm just trying to get you to hold another symposium and forward my position to managers, Professor)

[Huntster]

Saskeptic, there's no need to explain why you do not wish to reveal your identity or credentials old buddy. It's not required for anyone to reveal anything of a personal nature here. Anyone that argues someone else's point is invalid simply because that person chooses to remain out of the public eye, needs to sharpen up their debate skills a little cause that's not much of a counter.

I agree fully.

However, when discussing "the other guy" (the chicken rancher/engineer/subject matter expert/special forces operative/etc), it appeared rather obvious that he was a farce from early on. I tended to avoid him (but admit that occasionally, I got rather irritated with his claims). Professor Saskeptic, IMHO, is the "real thing". I enjoy his posts, and enjoy the banter with him (and hope he knows it).

[masterbarber]

If you are not willing (I understand this) to verify your credentials, why refer to yourself as a person with those credentials?

I'll respond to this also. Public Safety is something I've chosen to dedicate my life towards. I feel it's among the most noble of professions and having the ability to help people in all walks of life brings a great sense of pride to those of us who wear the badge. No, the pay is not great but then I don't know anyone that does it for the money.

I don't carry my credentials around so I can flash them on the internet or anywhere else and I try not to give the impression that I'm ever hitting someone over the head with them. You'll see me became more active in some of the threads that relate to my work experiences because I feel that some may benefit from the information. There have been several folks that have asked me questions about my job and some of the duties I perform so I'm always happy to answer them.

My choice to remain anonymous is an individual one and a fact that I'm very comfortable with. I come here because I've always had a fondness for Bigfoot, I enjoy the banter, and a part of me does hope that there actually is such a creature.

Lastly, I think that anyone that parades around claiming to be a Soldier or an LEO is the lowest form of a bottom dweller. Most LEOs can spot a phony Police Officer by the content of his language, thought process and written words.

[Guest]

Badgers! We don't need no stinking badgers!

On Wisconsin!

[Guest]

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

On the one hand, I take your point. On the other, someone can have an "agenda" or a "point of view" and still occasionally have something worth considering. Biscardi's "Bigfoot Lives" dvd has at least case in it I think merit serious consideration, despite Biscardi's bad reputation. Another example: Roger Patterson. Much evidence of poor character in aspects of his life, yet the PGF remains undebunked. Roger himself said that he was "the worst possible person for this to happen to."

[MagniAesir]

Mulder

I am a skeptic, but also an individual.

Personally I despise hoaxers for a number of reasons, here are a few of them;

1 - Some are attempting to profit from the hoax. To me that is stealing like any other fraud.

2 - I believe most BF researchers are honest, and I respect anyone that puts their own time, effort and money into anything they are passionate about. IMO the general public gets a bad impression of all BF researchers every time they hear about a hoax.

3 - Hoaxers muddy the water in regards to research, and many claims may be ignored simply because it may sound like a hoax.

4 - I think hoaxers are the enemy to both skeptics and believers, because they show no respect to either group. And I believe they help drive a wedge between the two groups.

[Guest Vincent]

I think people who claim that admitted hoaxers are actually re-hoaxing by claiming a hoax, sound extremely... desperate. If someone says he hoaxed something, and has at least reasonable proof, like bob h. or that footprint fella.. just go with it, really.

footers claiming hoaxters are hoaxing hoaxes sounds about as desperate, sad and pathetic as saying bigfoot walks on 4 legs;( grasping at straws.

as a person who believes in the possibility of bigfoot, i hope bigfooters can do better than this. sometimes, like the pgf, theres just to much evidence of it being fake. move on and try to discover or analyze better proof

[Guest Kerchak]

I think people who claim that admitted hoaxers are actually re-hoaxing by claiming a hoax, sound extremely... desperate. If someone says he hoaxed something, and has at least reasonable proof, like bob h. or that footprint fella.. just go with it, really.

Bob H doesn't have any 'proof', reasonable or otherwise.

footers claiming hoaxters are hoaxing hoaxes sounds about as desperate, sad and pathetic as saying bigfoot walks on 4 legs;( grasping at straws.

Or as deseprate as saying there is reasonable proof for Bob H just because you don't 'believe' in the PGF being authentic?

as a person who believes in the possibility of bigfoot, i hope bigfooters can do better than this. sometimes, like the pgf, theres just to much evidence of it being fake.

There's little evidence at all for the PGF being fake (quite the contrary in fact), except in the mindset of those who can't grasp what they might be looking at, but that's for the other threads.

move on and try to discover or analyze better proof

LOL, like this Bob H 'proof' you mentioned? Where is that then?

Anyway I'm not saying hoaxers should be ignored, just that their words shouldn't be taken as gospel just because they might claim something. They have as much responsibility to demonstrate and prove their hoax as anyone else making opposite claims.

See, what I notice are skeptics and scoftics automatically accepting the words of folks like, say, Bob H just because it's a nice neat and tidy little explanation that their minds can 'rationalize' and not because of any great evidence or demonstration of what he or they claim.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest Vincent]

Bob H doesn't have any 'proof', reasonable or otherwise.

Or as deseprate as saying there is reasonable proof for Bob H just because you don't 'believe' in the PGF being authentic?

There's little evidence at all for the PGF being fake (quite the contrary in fact), except in the mindset of those who can't grasp what they might be looking at, but that's for the other threads.

LOL, like this Bob H 'proof' you mentioned? Where is that then?

Anyway I'm not saying hoaxers should be ignored, just that their words shouldn't be taken as gospel just because they might claim something. They have as much responsibility to demonstrate and prove their hoax as anyone else making opposite claims.

See, what I notice are skeptics and scoftics automatically accepting the words of folks like, say, Bob H just because it's a nice neat and tidy little explanation that their minds can 'rationalize' and not because of any great evidence or demonstration of what he or they claim.

well opinion is opinion. to me, even though im

open to the possibility of an upright ape in north america, in otherwords, i believe big

foot might exist, i still know aguy in a suit when i seei t. PGF is a guy in a suit. Its painfully obviose to even a child.

i believe that when dealing with cryptids, sometimes the obviose answer is what we should go with until proven otherwise. for instance, if theres proof bob h was there (his horse was filmed), he walks like patty, is the same heiggt as patty, has a believable back story, lives a few houses from bob h and has some collaborative evidence, id believe him over a known, proven hoaxer who claims he filmed a real bigfoot... exactly the way he saw in a book, while making a movie. about bigfoot.

this goes for any bigfoot evidence or any "paranormal" evidence. i believe the 2 gentleman who claimed and showed they made crop circles far more than i believe aliens landed and left pretty designs. however, that doesnt discount my belief of life somewhere else in tbe universe besides earth.

believe in bigfoot. I do. but dont base your belief on known hoaxes because it makes you look gullible and turns bigfoot into a joke. true believers should applaud and cheer when a hoaxer fruitloop is kicked out or exposed, as it adds credibility to your cause, which is to find a real bigfoot. not a monkey suit.

i personally feel shame when people get caught in monkey suits or fruitlooos come on here talking about glowing eyed transdimensional beings walking on all 4s leaving bear tracks and making donkey sounds.

You should to. Science can and will find the answer. guys like biscardi and patterson only wanna find your credit card details when ordering the new dvd.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vincent

[Guest Kerchak]

Vincent,

You are a prime example of what the opening poster is talking about. It sounds like you accept what Bob H says as proof, even though he offers almost nothing and demonstrates even less. You accept an alleged hoaxer claiming a hoax based on very little.