The Motivation To Hoax

[Guest]

PBeaton said:

I think it a shame if as some have said, they will no longer share information. I think the sharin' of information allows us to all learn, even if it's from a mistake.

I agree - it is a shame. I am not aware of anyone though who has said they would not share information- at this point. But the possibility is there and is stronger than ever.

It's one thing to consider the possibility of a report being hoaxed when it's someone outside the community (heck, I even expect it) - but from within? I can't find a way to justify that.

[ohiobill]

And with no way to stop anyone from this community or any other from hoaxing what can be done? What do you think should be done to prevent future quotes in the Bigfoot Times like "With so many investigators being fooled by deliberately faked Bigfoot tracks, one must openly wonder how skilled Bigfooters are in spotting a wooden nickel"? Would training/education help researchers? A combination of training and methodology? What steps have been implemented at the American Bigfoot Society to prevent researchers from being hoaxed?

[Guest]

Yes, Ohiobill, training and education would help out. BUT - hoaxing is not the way to go about it.

[ohiobill]

I agree that training/education will work better if it takes place prior to the investigation. Have you implemented any steps at the American Bigfoot Society to put a program into place?

[Guest]

By identifying with proof positive that a track, trackway and story is fake, hoaxed by people getting their information from places like the BFF... Key characteristics can be gathered for future finds. Matt Crowley's diatribe did as much for hoaxers as it did for researchers. Why? Because it was made public. It would be hard for hoaxers to join a group of researchers who have sensitive information they use in the field to validate anything they come across. It has happened in the past. Ray Wallace was ignored when researchers found him making fake stuff and selling it from his store, making up fantastic stories, telling anyone who would listen that he worked with Roger Patterson, had hundreds of feet of film of Bigfoot throwing rocks to kill deer, eating corn flakes etc.. Ivan Marx was outcast from the Pacific Northwest Expedition when he became suspect in making up things like tracks. Cliff Crook became ostracized and bowed out when he presented pictures of Bigfoot from others, only to have the truth come out that he fabricated them.

Researchers need to police themselves, tighten up sensitive techniques and criteria they work with. Making any of it public just opens it up to be incorporated into future findings, adding a bit of expected crediance to malicious intent. Skeptics are not entitled to anything anymore than anyone else is. They just need it to feed their thirst. Let them try to anger or belittle your efforts... Learn from the past. I know of only two skeptical critical thinkers that would never think of hoaxing to prove their point. Those are the only two people I will be including in my discussions on the subject or anything I find.

[yowiie]

I think I would be correct in saying that there are 3 members on this forum that now the truth

[Guest RayG]

Once again we see a Skeptic trying to shape the narrative to put researchers in the worst possible light by ignoring what they themselves said about the investigation.

This Skeptic didn't ignore what they themselves said, he followed your suggestion and went back and re-read what they actually said. I didn't find the ambivalence you claimed they expressed from the beginning, so I put together a timeline of actual comments, with dates, to show that your stated claim was false. Since we both know you can't produce a timeline showing they had expressed public doubts from the beginning, you've now smoothly switched gears to them having unspoken thoughts from the beginning. It's certainly hard for me, or anyone, to argue with that kind of logic.

RayG's "timeline" assumes that the investigators only entertained doubts at the point where they expressed those doubts, so it's pretty much crap for that fact alone. It's not valid, and I have no need to refute it. That's like asking me to refute the equation 1+1=2. Utterly not needed.

Guessing at someone's unspoken thoughts would be assuming, and I wanted facts, so I went back and looked at their actual comments. I then condensed that actual text into a timeline that you have yet to refute.

Yes you do. Where was your "outrage" when all the Skeptics were raking the investigating team over the coals? Calling them "dupes". Accusing them of lying when they said they entertained doubts from Day 1.

First, the only one I've raked over the coals is you, for failing to provide evidence for your claim.

Second, stick to the facts. I didn't use the word "dupes", I said "duped". Duped = tricked, fooled, hoaxed, deceived. Did their written contributions to the forum indicate they were initially duped/tricked/fooled/hoaxed/deceived? Yes, and the timeline supports that. It's there for anyone to see. Does that mean they are still duped/tricked/hoaxed/deceived? No, nor have I indicated that.

Third, I've never made any accusations of lying towards the principles involved, it's something you bring up to divert attention for your lack of evidence. My only contention is that your claim is false, their own words show your claim is false, and If you have any evidence that shows otherwise, you're certainly taking a very long time to present it.

RayG

[SweatyYeti]

When did it become illegal to walk along a river bank in oversized footware?

It isn't. But...if Tontar did that, at Elbe....is it then 'above board/open and honest/respectable/morally right'....to issue a 'non-denial denial', and 'clam up' about it, to the fellow members of your Discussion Board community?

Edited October 28, 2012 by SweatyYeti

[Guest]

PBeaton said:

I agree - it is a shame. I am not aware of anyone though who has said they would not share information- at this point. But the possibility is there and is stronger than ever.

Either Derek or DDA (can't remember which off the top of my head, but it was one of them) has publicly said they would not be posting future research here due to the extremely hostile attitude. I've been told privately by multiple individuals that they as well don't post things here for that same reason, though they do lurk.

And with no way to stop anyone from this community or any other from hoaxing what can be done? What do you think should be done to prevent future quotes in the Bigfoot Times like "With so many investigators being fooled by deliberately faked Bigfoot tracks, one must openly wonder how skilled Bigfooters are in spotting a wooden nickel"? Would training/education help researchers? A combination of training and methodology? What steps have been implemented at the American Bigfoot Society to prevent researchers from being hoaxed?

They were NOT HOAXED. They spotted the hoax and reported it. The investigative process worked.

People need to get that through their heads.

[Guest Cervelo]

It was Derek that said he won't post his "research" here anymore

[Guest]

DDA said:

Researchers need to police themselves, tighten up sensitive techniques and criteria they work with. Making any of it public just opens it up to be incorporated into future findings, adding a bit of expected crediance to malicious intent. Skeptics are not entitled to anything anymore than anyone else is. They just need it to feed their thirst. Let them try to anger or belittle your efforts... Learn from the past. I know of only two skeptical critical thinkers that would never think of hoaxing to prove their point. Those are the only two people I will be including in my discussions on the subject or anything I find.

That is really good advice.

Ohiobill asked:

Have you implemented any steps at the American Bigfoot Society to put a program into place?

Yes. We are constantly reviewing our methods and updating as needed. I am sure you will understand when I say I will not discuss the specifics on an open forum.

[Guest]

Since we both know you can't produce a timeline showing they had expressed public doubts from the beginning, you've now smoothly switched gears to them having unspoken thoughts from the beginning.

And there you go again. That was ALWAYS my position, that they had unspoken doubts from Day 1. That is what they said, in public and in private, and you have not proven otherwise.

Guessing at someone's unspoken thoughts would be assuming, and I wanted facts, so I went back and looked at their actual comments. I then condensed that actual text into a timeline that you have yet to refute.

Becasue it does not address the important issue: their unspoken doubts. More "gotcha" playing and wordsmithing on your part to try to make them look bad.

I feel no more need to "refute" your fatally flawed timeline than I do to argue with flat-earthers.

First, the only one I've raked over the coals is you, for failing to provide evidence for your claim.

The Skeptics (including you) have done nothing BUT rake Derek and DDA over the coals over Elbe.

Second, stick to the facts. I didn't use the word "dupes", I said "duped". Duped = tricked, fooled, hoaxed, deceived.

Main Entry:

dupe  [doop, dyoop]

Part of Speech: noun Definition: person who is fooled Synonyms: butt*, chump, easy mark, fish*, fool, mark*, patsy, pigeon, pushover, sap*, sitting duck, sucker, victim

http://thesaurus.com/browse/dupe

Since say they have been duped, you are accusing them of being dupes.

And they're not. They didn't fall for the hoax. They exposed it.

Did their written contributions to the forum indicate they were initially duped/tricked/fooled/hoaxed/deceived? Yes, and the timeline supports that. It's there for anyone to see.

And back to the forge for more wordsmithing. Again you repeat your improper accusation that they were taken in by Elbe. Your "timeline" is wothless for the reasons I have stated.

Does that mean they are still duped/tricked/hoaxed/deceived? No, nor have I indicated that.

You never should have at all.

[Guest thermalman]

From the skeptic point of view, yes they we're duped. From a optomistic perspective, an investigation took place.

INVESTIGATION

1. The act of investigating; the process of inquiring into or following up; research; study; inquiry, esp. patient or thorough inquiry or examination; the investigations of the judge, the moralist.

- an inquiry into unfamiliar or questionable activities;

- the work of inquiring into something thoroughly and systematically.

Proper definition of words seems to be an ongoing issue for some here, who try and install their own point of view and definition in garnering support for own agenda.

Edited October 28, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

You got that right about the word game tactic, it devolves to that everytime...but hey when you've got nothing else what's a guy to do!

[Guest]

So because of the Elbe hoax, we can expect to see the reply " I have proof, I just don't plan to show it here" on a (more) regular basis...

I would suggest that researchers should appreciate the skeptical comments - it may help them to take off the BF goggles they seem to have and identify a hoax before they tout it as real.

One last thought about hoaxing:

>>>>>FAIR WARNING<<<<<

There has been hoaxing in the past - there will be hoaxing in the future.

Hoaxing is rampant in the world of BF and I don't just mean prints, photos, vids or reports. Things like BFF members who claim knowledge, experience and abilities that they don't really have ( LongtabberPE for one, and others) BF expeditions for $$$ that always seem to have some kind of encounter, even anyone who claims they "know" something about BF could be considered a hoaxer if they can't provide proof.

I ultimately think hoaxing, in all its forms, is mostly about attention.