BobbyO Posted October 4, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted October 4, 2012 Happy Birthday JC, before i forget.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Hoaxes come in all different shapes and sizes. Some I think are harmless, something to laugh about, some are done with a serious agenda. The bigger the hoax, the bigger the need to grind the axe. Seems to me one has to have real disdain for his target to put a lot of time into his charade, either wanting to prove them wrong, or make them look stupid plain and simple. That thought process to me speaks to possible mental issues and or general life dysfunction. The more mythical a person gets, the more troubling their issues might be. Being able to sit around and high five with other like minded axe grinding folks is good motivation as well. "We showed em!! " Narcissism at it's finest. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baboonpete 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 Actually in the outside world, hoaxing likely the same thing. I would argue folks like footers and ufo followers see it through a biased lense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think hoaxers are generally cynical skeptics who see themselves as part of a malitia against woo subjects. They are very hung up on what other people believe, and taking down a few believers with a hoax is like a merit badge of honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) This is an interesting thread. I believe the most recent hoax will turn out to be an excellent case study, with the hoaxer and cohorts leaving many clues to their motivations in the threads dedicated to the trackway find. Going back to read through the development of discussion in the thread is almost like forensic psychology. Not to mention their own bare footprints left by the hoaxer at the trackway, it doesn't get better than having them come out and explain the entire scenario for why they did it on a public forum. Certainly they were challenged to prove they could do it and they rose to the challenge, and in doing so they wanted to "take on the best of the best" investigators and crow about how their trackway was the best ever and then show the bigfoot community what frauds the investigators were. However, the problem with most hoaxers is their over confidence in their own abilities and a lack of respect for their "targets"... "No, were not doin' that no more...." Edited October 4, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Look at Rick Dyer. His little prank turned into a big waste of time for a lot of people. Due to his silliness, he was removed from his position as a police officer, as he clearly showed a lack of professionalism and lost the trust of his supervisors. Had he been a walmart greeter or 3rd shirt custodian, no one would have cared. While broke no legal code, he violated moral values of society. In the Norse/viking community, liars could not be trusted, as the culture relied heavily on oral tradition. Being labeled as an "oathbreaker," banishment from the people or death was a common practice. Today, a lie is perceived by many as a good thing, as it furthers one's ambitons for greatness. This practice is upheld as plots for many reality shows and people ascending positions of power. In many circumstances lies are considered acceptable and it is legal to do so without any penalty whatsoever. Hoaxing bigfoot evidence is but a microcosm of a much larger problem pervasive in all areas in the USA. When people are held accountable, then such actions will lessen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Another way to look at it is an experiment. I can actually see someone wanting to experiment to see who'd bite or to check their own skill level. Elbe for example would have been a great experiment to see how far up on their game the local researchers really are. I don't have any shame admitting that I was fooled, not 100%, but never the less I was in the ( I think the're probably real ) camp, at least for a while. The tracks were masterfully made. That being said, I honestly believe further study and scanning would have at least raised many doubts. I also think it's important to say that we were indeed planning that action. I also think it's important to keep things in perspective, and look at the seriousness of any hoax. Did anyone get hurt, did anyone die and so on. Good can come from almost any situation. Elbe for instance, I learned a lot and I'm sure the others involved have also. Sometimes school sucks, but you usually learn from it. Reminds me of the show with Leonardo Decaprio when he started working with the feds to expose other counter fitters. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ^ If we look at this particular hoax as an experiment then it does make more sense. I don't think there is any shame in having initial opinions rendered that the trackway might be valid, but reserving final judgement until the investigation is completed. Certainly for yourself and the other investigators it was an excellent exercise in research and all of you will be better prepared for the next "event". Look at Rick Dyer. His little prank turned into a big waste of time for a lot of people. Due to his silliness, he was removed from his position as a police officer, as he clearly showed a lack of professionalism and lost the trust of his supervisors. Had he been a walmart greeter or 3rd shirt custodian, no one would have cared. While broke no legal code, he violated moral values of society. If I recall correctly there was an attempt to get paid handsomely for the rotting meat in the monkey suit. A down payment was paid and I think there was at least a civil suit brought in that case to get the down payment returned. I think this was a key factor in the demise of his career as a law officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Lights Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I wrote this up last spring and think it's relevant. Profile: Hoaxer Baseline- With the advent of social media and portals such as Youtube, hoaxers have access to a virtual unlimited audience. This access provides added incentive to continue the hoax and increase the recognition. Recognition is the key element to a hoax and is the driving component which ties them all together. Classification of hoaxers- Professional: This level of hoaxer is motivated by the possibility of obtaining a profit from the hoax. The professional tends to have a high level of understanding of the subject matter and will go to extensive lengths to produce a believable and convincing incident. The incident will receive a very high level of scrutiny and will need to be able to withstand a critical analysis by others with knowledge of the subject. Since the motivation is profit and the professional knows the hoax will eventually be discovered as a ruse, obtaining the profit quickly will be a key. The hoaxer will seek a source willing to pay for exclusive access to the incident, probably with a local or national news organization. The professional will hold themselves out as an expert on the subject and profess to have an extensive background, which will add credibility to the incident. Credibility is a key to being able to sell the incident to an unsuspecting audience. Serial: The serial hoaxer is motivated more by obtaining attention than by the possibility of obtaining a profit. The attention garnered can be either positive or negative. This person will attempt to hide behind a false identity and use many aliases since quantity is more important to ensure the lineage can be continued. Timing of the release of the incident to the public will be quick. The method of exposure will be to the widest possible audience. Silly: This level has no regard for sophistication and is only motivated by getting a laugh. The hoax is usually obvious and ultimately harmless to the cause. The hoaxer doesn’t try and hide behind an alias and will publish multiple incidents. The release will be sporadic and usually on a medium that is easiest to access. Warhol: This level of hoaxer is only seeking recognition and the attention that comes with it. They are looking for their 15 minutes of fame and are not seeking to profit and have no intention of doing it in the future. Nefarious: The level of hoaxer has a grudge with a person or the subject and intends harm to the overall reputation by perpetrating a sophisticated hoax that will eventually be revealed. The hoax will be in line with the professional hoaxer by obtaining acceptance by the community and then coming clean with the intent to discredit the entire group. The release will be to a very narrow audience where immediate acceptance can be obtained allowing for a high degree of credibility. Types of Incidents- Video Still Pictures: Prints or impressions (Foot, Hand, Body) Stick Structures Audio Eyewitness Testimony Biological Evidence (Hair, Saliva, Scat, Skin) Type of Hoax- Direct: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and releasing it for consumption. Indirect: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and having a third party view it and ultimately report it. This method is reliant upon the third party to act upon what was witnessed and removes the hoaxer from the incident and all trails leading to them. Target Audience- General populace: This approach allows for the greatest coverage only requiring a single individual to witness the hoax and release it for consumption. Specific Individual: This method will focus the incident at locations the hoaxer knows an individual will frequent. Since recognition is needed by the individual, the hoaxer will have knowledge of the individual’s schedule along with the location. Analysis- In the event of an incident, analysis needs to be done based upon varying factors to determine whether a hoax exists or if the evidence is plausible for an actual event. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman 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. Agreed. It would sum up all the adjectives we've listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 +1 to you Northern Lights. That is a very concise review of hoaxer motivations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Hoaxer Motivations? As individual as the individuals who perform them. But I'm glad to see another thread bemoaning hoaxers and not one that lays out a blueprint to follow to minimize the chances of being hoaxed. It would be a lot of work to open up a middle school level science book and read about scientific methodology. It would be ultra hard to come up with a protocol to follow that would provide a step by step consideration for such a complex problem as investigating footprints. Thankfully the simple subjects like emergency medicine, engineering, brain surgery, flying/maintaining supersonic military aircraft and the like are able to be facilitated w/simple checklists and don't have to be done on a case by case basis like a super complicated subject like footprint investigation. At some point is someone going to address the bigfoot/elephant in the room? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Actually, ohiobill, the thread was about the why rather than the how. Despite your sarcasm I agree with your sentiments about protocol wholeheartedly. I asked world renowned experts FBFB but they haven't got back to me yet. Would you suggest anyone? How about you? Is it an undertaking you would consider? Best Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It isn't to deceive as much as it is to gain attention. To hold others minds in some abstract way. Like a "troll" on the internet. Just in reality. There where hoaxes before there was money it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Hoaxer Motivations? As individual as the individuals who perform them. But I'm glad to see another thread bemoaning hoaxers and not one that lays out a blueprint to follow to minimize the chances of being hoaxed. It would be a lot of work to open up a middle school level science book and read about scientific methodology. It would be ultra hard to come up with a protocol to follow that would provide a step by step consideration for such a complex problem as investigating footprints. Thankfully the simple subjects like emergency medicine, engineering, brain surgery, flying/maintaining supersonic military aircraft and the like are able to be facilitated w/simple checklists and don't have to be done on a case by case basis like a super complicated subject like footprint investigation. At some point is someone going to address the bigfoot/elephant in the room? OhioBill, if we laied out a step by step plan to catch any and all hoaxes on this forum, it would simply inform hoaxers what the researchers are looking for as authenticators and the game only escalates, meanwhile, most people arrive back to the point that if the evidence is hoaxable we can't call it proof of anything. The elephant in the room is this vicious cycle. Hoaxable evidence may still be compelling to researchers who find this type of evidence under the right circumstances, but it is not much more than a souvenir, and a clue where he/she may want to spend more time in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts