yowiie Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 We have the same trouble here in Australia, its quite a problem, there are more hoaxers than genuine researchers
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 From the skeptic point of view, yes they we're duped. From the "skeptic point of view" EVERYONE is duped. Every piece of evidence is invalid, every scientific opinion supporting BF worthless, etc. So why should we for one moment worry about "skeptic point of view"? From a optomistic perspective, an investigation took place. I would phrase it as being from a real world perspective, as opposed to the jaundiced, cynical worldview of the Skeptics. 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. ^^^^ 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! Thank you for admitting that Skeptics have nothing else...
Guest thermalman Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) We shouldn't worry about it, but it's hard for some when hoaxers and skeptics are in "your face" debunking those who are seriously and genuinely putting forth a sincere effort. They tend to take a heterodoxy stance and will twist wording and definitions to suit their ideology and support each other. Edited October 29, 2012 by thermalman
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 I feel kinda sorry for hoaxers and skeptics, because knowing of bigfoot's existence is enlightening and really has changed my view of human history a lot.
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 Comncents said: 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. The appreciation of a comment, or an opinion, has nothing to do with the acceptance of a deliberate act to deceive. I (personally) enjoy the opinions of those who do not agree with me - or have differing opinions from my own. I appreciate and respect anyone who can offer constructive criticism. Just my opinion.
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 You know.. I am sitting here this morning trying to think of a hoax that ended with the perpetrator saying, "I did this to show you "Bigfooters" how you mess up, what you need to be looking for and this is how I did it." I can't think of one... Can anyone think of hoaxing situation where the hoaxer actually told us how he did it and why - upon discovery of the hoax?
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 No Melissa. But the Elbe hoax would have been the first. I have no doubt it was going to show up in a "certain" documentary.
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 You could be right about the documentary - but I have had doubts for a long time this "documentary" would even get out of the talking phase. What's it been - at least 4 years now... Anyway. Well, this attempted hoax didn't even end that way. The researchers announced the hoax and we still don't have anything from the hoaxer as to why and how.. So.. Is there really an "I gotcha moment" if the hoaxer is beat to the punch by the investigators? Honestly - I think these hoaxers (and I have absolutely no doubt it is more than one) are most likely pretty upset that this did not go on as long as they hoped - and that it ended the way it did. If this "documentary" is being filmed - you could very well be right rockiessquatching - maybe the "I gotcha moment" was planned for the documentary.
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 Comncents said: The appreciation of a comment, or an opinion, has nothing to do with the acceptance of a deliberate act to deceive. I (personally) enjoy the opinions of those who do not agree with me - or have differing opinions from my own. I appreciate and respect anyone who can offer constructive criticism. Just my opinion. I'm not trying to defend a deliberate act to decieve. From the Ga boys hoax to Elbe hoax any many more in-between, what I have seen happen time and time again is BP proponents looking at a situation and doing everything they can to find reasons to proclaim "it couldn't be a hoax - its real". I don't know if it is because they are "so excited" or that they have such a stong desire to find good evidence that they can't see the other issues (BF goggles) or worse they deliberatly ignore problems or even make up confirming points, which is its own version of hoaxing. The other option is that they are actually that bad at evaluating evidence. In the Ga hoax, many a skeptic and some proponents pointed out problems, only to be shouted down until final proof of a hoax was shown. IMO - the same thing happened with the Elbe hoax - Things like toe movement, crossover steps, hiding behind a rise and many more were all touted as confirmations that this was a real trackway. Skeptical comments from both Pro and Con members asking about issues were skimmed over or ignored. I actually think that bringing evidence here or some other "public" place is a good way to get solid input - if it is listened to. Presently, it seems to be much more of an Us vs. Them - win at all cost rather than reasonalble discussions. If the direction things appear to be heading continues, I think another Elbe-type hoax will probably make it all the way to the "top" and be proclaimed real and cause an even bigger stir.
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 Comncents, It was not my intention to make it seem as if you were defending this act. So, if that is how you took it - I apologize. It's a statement of what I think should be fact. From the Ga boys hoax to Elbe hoax any many more in-between, what I have seen happen time and time again is BP proponents looking at a situation and doing everything they can to find reasons to proclaim "it couldn't be a hoax - its real". First of all let me say this - not all people who think this animal could be out there - are as you describe. Just as I am sure you would argue not all skeptics are scoftics (sp?). I do consider myself a skeptic. While my skepticism does not rival the hardcore "trash everyone" attitude that some have - I am very skeptical of even the things I have heard and witnessed. I find it can get messy when everyone is lumped into one or two categories. But I agree with you in the respect that not everything is bigfoot related - but not everything can be explained away as easily as some skeptics think. Not everything in life fits into neat little boxes that can be tied in bows. There are many things people think and say - on both sides - that I totally disagree with. One thing I have come to realize is - it doesn't matter how upset you get - or angry you get at one side or the other - they won't change. These people will think what they like (as that is their prerogative) and there is nothing we can do about it. Just as it is my (and your) right to think whatever we like. Either those we disagree with will explain themselves some day - or they will not. I won't be losing sleep over it however. But please - don't put us all into one big group and say we all think the same. We do not. I actually think that bringing evidence here or some other "public" place is a good way to get solid input - if it is listened to. Presently, it seems to be much more of an Us vs. Them - win at all cost rather than reasonalble discussions. And we agree on this quote from you. But - not just the skeptical side deserves to have their "point of view" listened to. Just because I call myself skeptical - that does not give me carte blanche to assume I know everything when I was not involved with the investigation. Reasonable discussions, can only happen when that is what everyone wants.
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 I did not mean to come across lumping everyone into one big group. I think it is more of a sliding scale. Zealous belief to zealous skeptic. I feel as if the "reasonable middle" is getting smaller.
Guest mdhunter Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) First of all let me say this - not all people who think this animal could be out there - are as you describe. Just as I am sure you would argue not all skeptics are scoftics (sp?). I do consider myself a skeptic. While my skepticism does not rival the hardcore "trash everyone" attitude that some have - I am very skeptical of even the things I have heard and witnessed. This exactly. Mel,I like reading your posts because more often than not it saves me from typing my thoughts. I really don't like typing much. Quote I actually think that bringing evidence here or some other "public" place is a good way to get solid input - if it is listened to. Presently, it seems to be much more of an Us vs. Them - win at all cost rather than reasonalble discussions. I recently put up some of my thoughts on why I am skeptical of many stick structures and tree twists in the stick structures thread. Not because I'm scofftic or trying to trash anybody. I could hardly be considered scofftic. But because there are logical explanations to SOME of this phenomena that I have not seen brought up.Whether anybody uses this information to educate themselves is up to them. I'm not against anybody, but if I see something that could be explained or misunderstood I think it is important to point it out. I know of at least seven states where the stuff I posted is done. If any amount of this "evidence" is mis-identified it could really lead some people on a "snipe hunt". Some people may be getting hoaxed when a hoax isn't even intended. I am not saying everybody in the field doesn't already know what I posted. What I'm saying is when you have several "country bunkins' " that aren't a fan of some particular evidence they may know more than is being posted on this forum. Edited October 29, 2012 by mdhunter
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 Well, this attempted hoax didn't even end that way. The researchers announced the hoax and we still don't have anything from the hoaxer as to why and how.. So.. Is there really an "I gotcha moment" if the hoaxer is beat to the punch by the investigators? No, there isn't, despite all their efforts at salvaging or manufacturing one out of the outcome (which is why the storm of flung poo at Derekfoot and DDA has been so fierce).
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 I did not mean to come across lumping everyone into one big group. I think it is more of a sliding scale. Zealous belief to zealous skeptic. I feel as if the "reasonable middle" is getting smaller. That's okay. Often times the meaning gets lost in the internet. I actually agree. We need a larger - "middle".. I have found the "middle" discussions help me more than anything. I am always looking for discussions that help me out with ideas I have floating around in my head - but it's more and more difficult to find those people who can just set their own preconceived ideas aside for the sake of discussion. Toes are easily stepped on these days - and I have no clue why.. mdhunter - thank you for the kind words.
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 First of all let me say this - not all people who think this animal could be out there - are as you describe. Just as I am sure you would argue not all skeptics are scoftics (sp?). I do consider myself a skeptic. While my skepticism does not rival the hardcore "trash everyone" attitude that some have - I am very skeptical of even the things I have heard and witnessed. Really? What Bigfoot evidence are you skeptical about? The possible Bigfoot picture you presented? The Skookum "Bigfoot" elk lay cast or Chilcutt and his "dermal ridges". You defend both. I have been in the field twice with you and both times possible Bigfoot activity was implied, spooky sounds heard, possible eye shine witnessed by you both times, and possible (human sized) Bigfoot prints casted by you. Are these the personal experiences you are skeptical of?
Recommended Posts