Why Are Amateur Researchers Who Find Evidence Labelled Hoaxers First?

[Guest]

Homer Simpson: So, Mr. Malloy, it seems that the cat has been caught by the very person who was trying to catch him.

Seymour Skinner: How ironic.

It appears to me that only chance encounters by people who were not looking for Bigfoot are accepted as possible evidence. Whereas, the very same kind of encounter by people who were looking for him is considered a hoax. Why do you think this is?

There is a history of this happening, most famously to Roger Patterson. He was interested in Bigfoot, he did his research, he wrote books, he made drawings, and all that is used against him as "proof" he's a hoaxer. Even Jerry Crew is accused of hoaxing the first ever cast foot prints that lead to the name Bigfoot. I'm sure others here can come up with even more examples, I know I can, but I don't want to write a novel here.

This unfortunate circumstance makes it very difficult for the admitted enthusiast and the amateur researcher alike to share their experiences/evidence, and may hinder the acceptance and discovery of our big friend.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Mounty

[Rockape]

I think the answer is simple, people see someone who is invested in BF as more likely have a motive to "stretch the truth" as opposed to someone who beforehand had no reason to make up a story about seeing a BF.

[Drew]

The ones who are looking for the beast, usually have photographs and/or video that is obviously a hoax to most people.

A chance encounter is just a story usually.

Can you think of one Bigfoot sighting, where they were looking for Bigfoot, and got video or photos, and the evidence is unimpeachable? That is why they are labeled as hoaxes, because the results are bad, whether they were looking for the Beast or not.

[Guest]

Hypithetically speaking, what do you think the public response would be if Doctor's Bindernagel or Meldrum, who are two legitimate professionals with invested interest in Bigfoot, were to have a chance encounter which they hastily caught on a cellphone camera?

This situation may just happen one day, after all, they are actively looking, and just like you and me they will have cellphone cameras. And, you never know when Bigfoot will show itself.

Imagine, if you will, Dr. Meldrum pulling up in his truck to a research location. He's on the phone telling his wife that he made it there safely, when all of a sudden Bigfoot darts out of the bush and crosses in front of him. Meldrum doesn't have time to pull out a high quality camera with a fancy zoom lens, so he whips his phone around and turns on the video function just in time to catch a glimpse of Bigfoot fading in to the bush. Would we call him a hoaxer if he went public with his video?

Is this the nature of the beast? Pun very intended!

Edited October 5, 2012 by Mounty

[Drew]

No.

Because he could be the victim of a hoax. He would only be the hoaxer, if he had organized it.

One of his grad students could have found out where he was going, and sent a Fraternity Rushee over there in a Gorilla Suit.

[Guest]

The ones who are looking for the beast, usually have photographs and/or video that is obviously a hoax to most people.

A chance encounter is just a story usually.

Can you think of one Bigfoot sighting, where they were looking for Bigfoot, and got video or photos, and the evidence is unimpeachable? That is why they are labeled as hoaxes, because the results are bad, whether they were looking for the Beast or not.

Mounty, the above post is the perfect example of Skeptic "either/or" thinking. If it is not 100% "proven" to be true, then it MUST be false. If there is even .00000000 (whole bunch of zeroes)1% chance that it might be a mistake or hoax, the Skeptic will grab onto that infinitesimal chance that it's not BF and demand that we accept that that is the correct conclusion to reach.

Therefore the Skeptic argument is in essence: "There is no Bigfoot. Therefore anyone who sees one must be mistaken or crazy or has been hoaxed, and all proffered trace evidence is hoaxed or misidentified. Prove us wrong". Proof being defined as a case that establishes absolute certitude.

No.

Because he could be the victim of a hoax. He would only be the hoaxer, if he had organized it.

One of his grad students could have found out where he was going, and sent a Fraternity Rushee over there in a Gorilla Suit.

But of course, Drew, you don't have to prove any of that...Dr Meldrum, by Skeptic standards of evidence has to prove he wasn't hoaxed, mistaken, etc...

Which is why I hold Skeptics in such low regard. Absolutist thinking and a refusal to follow their own rules.

[Drew]

Mulder here is the question I was answering "Would we call him a hoaxer if he went public with his video?"

I said 'No.'

[Guest]

I know that, but you would still dismiss his sighting out of hand. That's the point I was making.

[southernyahoo]

The ones who are looking for the beast, usually have photographs and/or video that is obviously a hoax to most people.

A chance encounter is just a story usually.

Can you think of one Bigfoot sighting, where they were looking for Bigfoot, and got video or photos, and the evidence is unimpeachable? That is why they are labeled as hoaxes, because the results are bad, whether they were looking for the Beast or not.

Bad or hoaxable evidence doesn't make the evidence a hoax, people take bad pictures of dark animals in the shadows as often as they take good ones. Pocket digital cameras are real pain in action photography.

[Guest BFSleuth]

No.

Because he could be the victim of a hoax. He would only be the hoaxer, if he had organized it.

One of his grad students could have found out where he was going, and sent a Fraternity Rushee over there in a Gorilla Suit.

It does seem that "could" is the most important word in the skeptical lexicon. As long as a skeptic can use "could" in a sentence, then it is safe to conclude that it must be a hoax.

I love the easy nature of this particular bit of argument. It certainly is less taxing on the brain.

[salubrious]

Can you think of one Bigfoot sighting, where they were looking for Bigfoot, and got video or photos, and the evidence is unimpeachable? That is why they are labeled as hoaxes, because the results are bad, whether they were looking for the Beast or not.

There will never be 'unimpeachable evidence' as there will always be someone that is sceptical, even if the announcement of the discovery of BF comes from the US gov't.

I find that timbergiantbigfoot on YT is one of the more credible researchers, who does (on no budget) go out looking for Bigfoot, finds it and gets videos. He's been doing it a long time. I am very convinced his stuff is real, and IMO is some of the better evidence on the web.

[Guest]

Thats a perfect example. What if TimberGiant from Youtube fame gets a good video of bigfoot? Most of us enjoy his efforts, and he has respect from the "Pros" (Dr. Bindernagel went to visit him and his research area). Would TimberGiant be labelled a hoaxer if he got a good video, and then would every subsequent video with a hint of evidence be discredited? I hope not, but that's probably the case.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Mounty

[Guest BastetsCat]

I think that the only person that any picture proves anything to is the person that snapped the picture. I also think that the people that have had a sighting are more likely to be accepting of others than people who just really want to have a sighting. The guys that are the investigators but talk like they are trying to prove it doesn't exist instead of that it does. Not all of them are that way I hope.

[Guest thermalman]

The ones who are looking for the beast, usually have photographs and/or video that is obviously a hoax to most people.

A chance encounter is just a story usually.

Can you think of one Bigfoot sighting, where they were looking for Bigfoot, and got video or photos, and the evidence is unimpeachable? That is why they are labeled as hoaxes, because the results are bad, whether they were looking for the Beast or not.

Yup. One encounter comes to mind. The PGF. So far, infallible.

Edited October 5, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Thats a perfect example. What if TimberGiant from Youtube fame gets a good video of bigfoot? Most of us enjoy his efforts, and he has respect from the "Pros" (Dr. Bindernagel went to visit him and his research area). Would TimberGiant be labelled a hoaxer if he got a good video, and then would every subsequent video with a hint of evidence be discredited? I hope not, but that's probably the case.

You want to know what's frustrating? The people I think really have the best chance of actually bagging a squatch, if they were so inclined, are probably Timberghost and his associates in the Kiamichis. But they have not interest in "proving" anything to outsiders after the shabby, shameful way they were treated by BFRO reps during the Honobia incident.