Why Are Amateur Researchers Who Find Evidence Labelled Hoaxers First?

[Guest BastetsCat]

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.

Them and others Mulder...I had my fill at the hands of the BFRO. I can only imagine that there are soooo many others out there that got the same treatment. In my opinion their mission statement should read... 'out to prove that you are insane and that the beast does not exist; while we make money.' Once the creature is proven will the BFRO still float?

I have never done anything uncredible...but I did disagree with one of their researchers at one point. Turns out just a few days ago I ran across one of the guys blogs. Nothing that he told me was recorded the same way he said it to me when we spoke...Hum does that make him credible? It must because he has so many followers. I have heard that he still really wants to see one too. I was all but told that unless you were in the area that he really wanted to be hunting in that he didn't find any reports credible. So I guess maybe that is why he hasn't seen one; in a nutshell.

The problem isn't people being out there. The problem isn't BF being out there. The problem is the system that puts inexperienced people in charge of releasing and circulating knowledge. If it was a subject matter of owls and you had a field guide that had seen pictures and found feathers But never seen one then how effective would that be. Add in over stuffed Egos and good ole boy networks and you get the issue that we have with the BF researchers. Lots of the people that are bringing in solid evidence in their sightings retelling experiences are going against the grain of those overstuffed egos that for years have said...Its like this. Well the reports are saying it isn't like this and it causes a backlash.

That in my opinion is the nucleus of the problem. The information gets challenged. But it didn't nessecarily come from a realistic place it came from some guy that....really wanted to see one.

Don't get me wrong there is at this point a lot of ground breaking and great thinking people out there that are considered very credible and very well should be. There are also a lot of charismatic jealous and nasty people out there that will stop at nothing to prove anyone wrong even if maybe they are not because to them it has to be This Way.

[Guest grandcherokee]

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.

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.

I am not entirely sure that this is true. People's evidence will stand or fall on its own merits. Those who have had an encounter without evidence will just have a good story to relate, nothing more.

Even evidence must have its own standards, as well. As many a researcher has found out. 'evidence' is not 'proof' of anything. Evidence can also destroy a theory, or a claim. That is the nature of the game, in a nutshell. It is not for the faint of heart, nor should it be.

It is the difference in saying."This is what I think happened to me!"....to "This is what happened to me and you had better believe it!"

Which would I be more likely to embrace?

[Guest]

Is this a thread started to create a sympathetic logic towards the Dyers video? What other amateur researchers are you talking about?

Edited October 6, 2012 by Woodswalker

[Guest]

Is this a thread started to create a sympathetic logic towards the Dyers video? What other amateur researchers are you talking about?

Every amateur researcher. I believe I gave examples of other researchers in my first post. I consider Dryer to be a rotten apple, and I hope he hasn't spoiled the batch for the rest of us.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Mounty

[Guest]

Can you think of one Bigfoot sighting, where they were looking for Bigfoot, and got video or photos, and the evidence is unimpeachable?

Working on it.

[Guest]

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?

An analysis of the many posts dedicated to PGF would indicate that a good number of people on here accept that footage as possible evidence.

I think it's human nature in any field of enquiry to harbour some suspicions about any individual who shows signs of wanting to self-aggrandize from a particular situation.

[Guest]

I know that, but you would still dismiss his sighting out of hand.

Without convincing corroborating evidence, why would you accept his sighting out of hand? I dismiss almost all sightings out of hand. A human being is telling me a story, claiming to have experienced something. I've been around enough human beings to seriously question their powers of observation, internal judgment, and strength of character. A story is a story. You may choose to believe it, but that doesn't make it evidence or proof or data, or anything else useful. Some are more convincing, but most are easily dismissed.

On the other hand, it's correct to label 'skeptics' like Drew and others as accepting any and all other possible explanations for events other than encountering a sasquatch. Because most in the skeptic camp are convinced that extremely large hairy bipedal apes don't exist (apart from a few humans who might fit that description). Therefore whatever the experience or evidence - it must have a non-bigfoot explanation. Once you remove the impossible (the existence of sasquatch) whatever is left over is the truth (multiple young people spending all summer in gorilla suits getting shot at). Etc.

IMO both hardcore proponents and skeptics have long escalated the language used in their debates to make the actual facts of a matter... inconsequential to the overall quest of proving/squashing bigfootery in general.

@the OP: They're usually labelled hoaxers because they usually are. A lot of stuff offered as possible evidence is downright laughable. It's either natural, man-made, misidentified, or inconsequential. Once a piece of evidence has substance to it, there is usually a debate between the bigfoot camp and the hoaxer camp.

There is very little motivation for a non-bigfoot researcher to report a sighting. This is either done to mess with the researchers (practical jokes, etc.) or because the person honestly believes they've had some kind of experience. That person doesn't have a selfish motivation for talking to researchers about their sightings. A bigfoot researcher, on the other hand, has quite a lot of motivation to create results for the time, energy, and money they've put into their amateur research. That motivation casts suspicion on any results they bring to the table - that's just the way of it.

I don't automatically assume that all researchers are liars, stupid, flat out wrong, being hoaxed, etc. But I don't just take people's word for it either. One of my most favorite aspects of bigfooting is the discovery of alternate explanations for bigfoot-related phenomenon. In that regard you could label me a skeptical proponent. I go out with "knowers" on a regular basis. Having never had a convincing encounter myself, I take pleasure in analyzing evidence and finding natural explanations for it. I can't always do that, but often "bigfoot did it" isn't the most likely explanation for things that go bump in the night.

Edited October 7, 2012 by ShadoAngel

[Guest]

This is my first post on the BFF. After reading the all the post I had to add my thoughts. First I would say that this whole phenomenon is a layered onion and no one has a pure motive. If you spend enough time reading daily blogs and listening to weekly pod cast you can get a pretty good feel for the highs and lows of the industry. Yes industry. There is the DNA groups both pro and con. Do they have real evidence, who knows its all "secret". You have the habituators, who if you listen to them they interact with bigfoot all the time. They know where they are and could take you out if they choose for some sort of interaction. Are they hoaxing stories for attention, fun, money, or are they really having encounters?

Then you have the pictures and videos. That could take all night to decipher all the motives. Some see things that others don't in blobs that take special equipment to see. Are they hoaxing or just want something to be there so they feel apart of the club. Who knows for really for sure except them. Next we have the sound recordings. Cool sounds but not everything can be a bigfoot. I've heard strange thing to, only to find out later that animals make lots of different sounds not just what we learned as kids. Are people hoaxing sounds, you bet but maybe not all. Then you have the scientist. You have both sides here. They pretend to be objective but they really aren't. They have skin in the game.

Finally there are the witness's and the prints. I find them both compelling. Hoaxing here yes, but unless you speak to someone face to face its hard to just take anyone's story at face value.

Hoaxing is done to really two reasons, money and attention. Follow the money trail and you will find the real motive for most but not all the onion layers and attention comes in a close second. Do I believe there is a bigfoot, I don't know. I hope so.

[Guest]

FIrst, welcome to the forum Scouter.

Second, if money and attention are what motivate BF evidence hoaxing, then how do you account for the fact that most BF evidence has in fact NOT led to either in any significant way?

[Guest]

Well I would say that motive is just that motive. They may think it will lead to a pot of gold or great fame but you are right neither has lead to either and never will. However that does not keep them from hoping.

[Guest]

Mulder: I'll agree with you on money. But are you arguing that providing "evidence" doesn't provoke attention? Ketchum doesn't even have confirmed-from-the-outside-world evidence and there are thousands and thousands of posts about her project. The new Elbe trackway netted several hundred just in the past week. Attention is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, no one has gotten on-a-box-of-wheaties-famous from bigfoot. But I think they've gotten attention - by the bucket load.

[Guest]

Yes, attention is in the eye of the beholder, and outside of this very narrow realm of internet Bigfootness, they have received virtually zero attention. Those thousands of post you refer to, where made by how many posters?

The perception of attention does not mean much outside of this place.

[norseman]

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.

There is no such thing as "unimpeachable evidence" that has to do with ANY video or photos........

People minding their own business that see a Squatch simply mistook it for a bear. People out hunting for the thing that get video are simply filming their cousin in a ape suit........so forth and so on.

It's always going to be dismissed because we all know its a biological impossibility for a bipedal N. American ape to be living in our wild areas still undiscovered.

[Guest]

It's always going to be dismissed because we all know its a biological impossibility for a bipedal N. American ape to be living in our wild areas still undiscovered.

Really? Can you explain how its "impossible"? Wasn't there a small group of Aboriginal people that walked out of the woods (on two feet, aka bipedal) in California that was previously unknown to society about a hundred years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishi

[Guest]

Yes, attention is in the eye of the beholder, and outside of this very narrow realm of internet Bigfootness, they have received virtually zero attention. Those thousands of post you refer to, where made by how many posters?

The perception of attention does not mean much outside of this place.

This. It also seems that the Elbe Hoaxer has basically crawled under a rock and refuses to come out and take credit for his alleged accomplishments. I know I've seen him on the "currently active on the forum" roster off and on for several days, but he hasn't to my knowledge made any posts.

Odd behavior for someone "seeking attention", isn't it?

Plus the fact that his little bobby trap didn't catch it's intended prey, since the research team didn't fall for it.

Really? Can you explain how its "impossible"? Wasn't there a small group of Aboriginal people that walked out of the woods (on two feet, aka bipedal) in California that was previously unknown to society about a hundred years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishi

I believe that Norseman was being sarcastic, Mounty.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Mulder