dopelyrics Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Controversy and the allegation of “Hoax†quickly surrounds any evidence that people present regarding Bigfoot. And rightly so in many cases as far as I am concerned. Specifically, regarding video evidence, I believe there is a dearth of material out there that does not stand up to close and objective scrutiny. The subject of Hoaxing is never far away from a lot of the threads on this forum; there are people on here who simply will not entertain that Bigfoot exists and are adamant that people who claim to have had sightings or experiences are either misidentifying things, or are part of, or victims of, hoaxes. I am fine with that, people are entitled to their opinion whether it is informed or not. It is an opinion nonetheless. With the Bigfoot phenomenon becoming even more entrenched in US culture with the help of mainstream programmes like Finding Bigfoot, I expect we will see more and more hoaxers entering the fray. I don’t think it will be long before we get our first video hoax of a Bigfoot in England – I was very surprised to hear that there have been some sightings of a hairy 8 foot biped in the well-trodden forests of Middle England. To me, that sounds ridiculous, yet I have no problem thinking there might be something in the forest of North America. But what do you think the motivation is behind a Hoaxer? Is it simply because they want to make fools of people? Have a laugh at someone’s expense? Could it be for financial gain? I’ve no idea if there is any money to be made in the Bigfoot world. Unless someone can hoax that a Bigfoot family lives on their property and so are able to sell their property to researchers for a handsome profit. I hardly think it can be called fraud: Plaintiff: “He conned me out of my life savings because I bought his property under false pretences†Judge: “And what were those false pretences?†Plaintiff: “He told me a family of Bigfoots lived thereâ€. Judge: “Next!†Is it for 15 minutes of fame/notoriety? Is it to, paradoxically, convince people that I really did see that Bigfoot, and here are some casts I made the week after. You can stop laughing at me now. Or is it out of spite? You want to fool me because I called in to question XYZ about you as a Researcher. Whilst a lot of the above may be valid reasons, I have to go with many people just want to fool people for a laugh. Please let’s not talk about specific cases that have not been proven to be a hoax, despite the fact you may think they are – the thread will get quickly derailed I’m sure. So if we could steer away from the likes of PGP, Freeman, etc’, and speak more generically about things. Any thoughts appreciated. Best, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) More than likely, to appease one's self centeredness and arrogance, and prove to the world that they can pull one over on people over the net? Edited October 4, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Yes thermalman, I believe that would be strong motivation. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 4, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted October 4, 2012 1 ) Ego 2 ) An insatiable appetite to try and " be right " 3 ) Control There are more but i can't be bothered to think about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) For me DL, while I believe you've mentioned most of the reasons, snorts n' giggles, etc. I believe it's a reaction to some of the bad science employed and extraordinary claims attributed to sasquatch, bigfoot, whatever you will, by a few in and around the community and the seriousness that is often employed in delivering those viewpoints. I think some folk just see that and think it's the communities stance as a whole... serious and nonsense = soft target Also people possibly rebelling because they effectively see a whole lot of running before any walking... ? I understand people have had experiences and want to share them, sure I would too but the fact is nothing has been proven yet and the mystery has gone on for eons. This timespan then further compounds the situation by the lack of tangible documented evidence i.e. no proof positive. So I guess therein you have another possible reason, like an enacted sarcasm of sorts. The longer it goes on the worse it will get... G Edited October 4, 2012 by RayG Replaced censored word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spader Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) I agree with Thermalman. Arrogance and perhaps the chance to pull one over everyone are strong motivators. There are psycho/sociopathic people that commit horrible crimes for the satisfaction of thinking they are smarter than everybody(im not saying hoaxers are insane criminals, just an example). They get the self satisfaction of secretly making their victoms feel elation than pull the rug out from underneath them. I'll show them. Greed could also be a strong motivator. In my own humble opinion hoaxing is about as passive aggressive as one can get. In other words, control. edited for spelling Edited October 4, 2012 by Spader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 In my own humble opinion hoaxing is about as passive aggressive as one can get. Good poker players then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Thanks - these are all valid reasons and many I did not give thought to. Best, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Based on recent events around here, it looks like there's a new category of hoaxer: Skeptics trying to play "Gotcha" on researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Mulder, yes that did spring to mind and actually was my motivation to start the thread. As well as other events currently being played out not too far away. Ta. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Does anyone remember the class clown that consistently disrupted the learning environment in school? In the good ol' days, the schmuck was paddled, suspended, and ultimately removed from the learning environment. These days, there is always an excuse for bad behavior, and disruptive students are allowed to run rampant in public education. We give them cute labels (ADD, ADHD, BD etc), or feel sorry for them because they come from broken homes, had a family crisis, or are afflicted with widely fluctuating hormones. There's always an excuse for dysfunction, everyone gets a trophy, and the rest of the students get shafted when it comes to learning. Well my friends, little brats grow up, lose their gills and larval tails and hop out of the juvenile pond into the land of the real world. Some learn the hard way and get their acts together, while others keep behaving badly. They have a "what are you gonna do about it?" attitude that usually lasts until someone fires them or lays them out cold. These punks evolve into the social parasite known as hoaxers. Because bigfoot is considered a joke to most people, this type of hoaxing is deemed acceptable, much like allowing the class clown to bully the weird kid in class because nobody likes them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 There is a big difference between pranksters and hoaxers. Pranksters are the ones doing Punked and Jacka**, and hoaxers want to take it to the next level. Is pranking the gateway drug to hoaxing? A prank is something silly usually, a hoax is more serious business. I happen to think that hoaxers are partially sociopathic o narcissistic. I am sure somebody has done a pschological study on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ^Wude, while your general point is valid, I think you shouldn't lump in people with ADHD, etc with "class clowns". I had ADHD in grade school bad enough that it required medication at one point to keep my behavior under control. Thankfully I outgrew the condition (as often happens), because the meds themselves have some nasty side effects. Also, there's a difference between the general "class clown" (a light-hearted person who is always ready with a joke or a quip, doesn't take anything too seriously, and so forth) and the malicious prankster/bully who sets out to hurt people or humiliate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) wudewasa I think your pretty much spot on with that one. The more intricate,and time consuming the hoax is, the more the person should consider maybe getting some sort of counselling. Mulder I agree with that to, I think wud was more talking about excuses for behavior, rather than valid conditions, the hoaxer has nothing valid wrong with them, other than they are a butt. Edited October 4, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Based on recent events around here, it looks like there's a new category of hoaxer: Skeptics trying to play "Gotcha" on researchers. There is nothing "new" about this catagory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts