The Motivation To Hoax

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

People as a whole are complex. Where someone may hoax maliciously to make someone look stupid, someone else may do it to try and bolster the belief of sasquatch - to gain attention to the phenomena, so to speak, or maybe to reinforce his or her "sighting" so they will be believed. While we still won't like the idea of a hoax, I think we could more easily forgive the latter hoaxer over the malicious one.

Still, I equate a hoaxer with a liar in his or her dishonesty. And people lie for a wide variety of reasons.

They lie because it serves them somehow (I've yet to see anyone make a ton of money from a BF hoax, as far as I know).

Yet they also lie because the act of lying thrills them to no end - some to the point that they couldn't tell the truth if they had to (and I'm thinking of a specific cousin of mine).

I think some people lie because they think it will make someone else happy. I often read here on the BFF of someone vouching for their friend (team mate, colleague, whatever) to where this person is practically put up on a pedestal. "This person would NEVER lie to me - his integrity is unimpeachable!" Well, that's a lot to live up to. I also think some people feel they have to produce some evidence since they've been built up into this paragon of a bigfoot hunter. So whenever I read someone claiming it's impossible they are being hoaxed, I roll my eyes the same way I read some hard-headed skeptical response along the lines of, "They don't exist, so any evidence is false and that's that!"

My gut instinct on why people hoax is for the grins and giggles. The people who dress up in a ghillie or gorilla suit will always be around for the thrill of the prank. I think it has gotten more sophisticated over the years to be sure - the more "experts" out there in sasquatch foot morphology, the bigger the gauntlet being tossed down. I am sure it would delight someone to no end if they could pull one over on "Finding Bigfoot" or Dr. Meldrum. Where that crosses over from a prank to maliciousness is probably a matter of perspective. If we never hear the motivation behind a hoax, it's hard to speculate if the hoaxer is just being a goof, or a complete jerk.

[Guest RayG]

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

Good way to look at it. I just think it's ironic that some folks were calling for skeptics to produce a convincing track/trackway, yet when they do, a small mob gathers with pitchforks and torches.

I'm still confused though. Was this an example of a skeptic trying their best to create tracks to show that it could be done, or was it a proponent who created the tracks in an effort to pass them off as authentic? Didn't John Green put out a challenge a few years ago for someone to recreate authentic looking tracks?

RayG

[Guest]

Think about hoaxing an open-minded non-believer for a second - the more compelling the evidence, the more likely it will engender belief. With the Elbe trackway, we had a situation where the tracks produced were of a sufficient level of quality to convince critically-minded researchers of their veracity.

(Some may take issue with the descriptor, "critically-minded" - I think it's a fair characterization of the individuals at the scene, who I'd distinguish from those who see a BF in every shadow, stump or blob of a youtube video).

So, when you come at it from this angle, and a hoaxer puts work into hoaxing believable evidence for the benefit of researchers open to BF's existence, you have to take the "for sport" element out of it. The Elbe trackway is not like a half-wit with a shaky camera filming some jamoke in a ghillie suit peeking around trees. They were believable tracks, so those open to belief in BF believed in them. It's all so trite that you have to look for other motivations other than skeptics "tricking" believers. That leaves malice and notoriety as other possibilities. The former is just sad - the notion that somebody feels so threatened by somebody's belief in an unproven creature. It also doesn't compute - one's belief in hoaxed evidence says nothing as to the possibility of the existence of the creature. That leaves notoriety - the challenge of coming up with evidence convincing enough to fool the best and brightest who take a research interest in the phenomenon. I suppose if that's the motivation, all you can say is get a new hobby - go for a jog or buy some stamps. Again, convincing others to believe in your hoax is of limited utility - it does nothing to impugn other evidence or the possibility of existence. At best it allows a hoaxer to stick their thumbs in their ears, wave their hands and perhaps dance on the spot. Okay then, if that's you, I hope somebody's proud. If that's me, I think about killing myself it that's all that life's ambitions and experiences have led me to.

Edited October 4, 2012 by cheech44

[Guest]

too much time on their hands and boredom

[Guest]

There is nothing "new" about this catagory.

Oh? Do I sense an "untold story" here?

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.

They're "crusaders" in their own way. So convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority that they can self-justify any level of deception to advance what they see as "proper thinking".

[Drew]

Hoaxing Bigfoot is part of Americana.

[Guest]

I think, to be complete, NL's list does need to add the inverse of the Nefarious hoaxer, and that would be someone so absolutely determined to prove BF exist that they would indeed manufacture evidence to that effect. It is within the realm of possibility for that motivation to exist.

Good way to look at it. I just think it's ironic that some folks were calling for skeptics to produce a convincing track/trackway, yet when they do, a small mob gathers with pitchforks and torches.

It isn't that they did it, Ray, it's the way they did it: covertly, and with the intent of playing the "Gotcha" card on researchers.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

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.

^That's some beautiful stuff right there.

[dopelyrics]

Northern Lights - great post!

Best,

Lee

Edited October 5, 2012 by dopelyrics

[Guest]

Hoaxing Bigfoot is part of Americana.

Spare us, Drew...It's you Skeptics who keep insisting that BF doesn't even cross the minds of most "mainstream: Americans, scientific or lay person. But when it's convenient for you to do so, suddenly it becomes "Americana", part of the national cultural gestalt. Which conveniently allows you to play the "army of folk hoaxers" card to dismiss the scope, scale, and depth of BF evidence we already have to hand.

No one who stops to think about it for more than a few seconds is buying it, Drew.

[Drew]

I can remember being 7 years old, in Oakland County Michigan in the 70's, and my cousin who was 9 or 10, telling me to look out into the woods, you can see Bigfoot, sometimes you'll see him walking across the hill, and I would stare and then I would see it!, so we would go out into those woods, and we would make Bigfoot prints and look for bigfoot evidence. Of course the area we are talking about was a 1/2 mile square of woods, and is built up now, but in the 70's kids did that. The older kids saw in search of, and told the little kids about it, and they went out, and the older kids taught the little kids how to make Bigfoot prints. It's part of America, you can not buy it, but this wasn't even the PNW, it was Michigan. I can imagine the stories that were told in Washington or Oregon in the 1970s

[Guest]

Oh? Do I sense an "untold story" here?

Lot's of them, I think you underestimate the ammount of hoaxing that is attempted. You would need to get out on investigations to get it.

[Guest]

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

I agree VX. Believers & researchers are toys to be played with. And I think some hoaxers have more sinister motives

[Guest]

Lot's of them, I think you underestimate the ammount of hoaxing that is attempted. You would need to get out on investigations to get it.

Not asking you to break any confidences, and the technical details don't need to get out, but I think researchers should talk a LOT more about the hoaxes they uncover. Skeptics keep trying to fly the "gullible researcher" flag and get everyone to salute it, but if researchers were more transparent about how many hoaxes they themselves have busted it would take the wind out of the Skeptic sails.

I agree VX. Believers & researchers are toys to be played with. And I think some hoaxers have more sinister motives

Agreed on both counts

[Guest BFSleuth]

Perhaps one motivation is "I hoaxed them because they are bigger hoaxers than me!" Along the lines of "they had it coming"...