Why Are Amateur Researchers Who Find Evidence Labelled Hoaxers First?

[Guest]

A big part of the problem, in my opinion, anyway, is simply the forums here, and across much of the internet related Bigfoot world has been over run with a group of scofftics, and self proclaimed "critical thinkers". These people tend to throw a label of hoax out there immediately, at the first sign of good evidence. I think they do this for two reasons, number one, lack of having an open mind means they are not skeptical, but rather completely convinced Bigfoot is impossible, and number two, and probably most importantly , they are eager to get a "label" on the evidence, to produce doubt right away. This enables them to lay the ground work for ridiculing anyone who attempts to give it some serious measure after the fact.

This is not skepticism, this is an argument technique that has made its way into acceptance somehow on these forums. This is always a mystery to me, as to what drives people to be this way? Do they have an agenda? Does it make them feel superior,almost like a bully thing?

Any evidence presented, is automatically labeled here, making this a good place not to present evidence. That is why you see serious researchers such as Timbergiant refuse to participate, they know, no matter what they present as part of their research, it is automatically suspect, and will subject them to character assassination.

Having said all that, the key is, to watch the evidence, and decide for yourself what it means to you. The opinions you here on a forum like this are just that, opinions, and most are from people not qualified to give their opinions any weight what so ever. What they say here, only has as much relevancy as you give it. You can bet your bottom dollar, that professionals such as Dr Bindernagel, Dr Meldrum, or Dr. Ketchum do not give a rats behind what arm chair, unqualified,internet scofftic has to say, so try not to get caught up in it your selves.

[Guest]

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.

speaking as a sceptic, I do not assume that bipedal primates in North America are impossible. I think they may even be quite possible. I certainly hope they do exist as that would be quite cool. Not all sceptics are so dismissive.

I do consider the possibility that someone looking for bigfoot may have a little more incentive to put on a hoax but I don't dismiss the story and evidence just because there is that extra incentive.

[Guest]

oh, sorry, sarcasm is sometimes hard to interpret in print.

[Guest]

A big part of the problem, in my opinion, anyway, is simply the forums here, and across much of the internet related Bigfoot world has been over run with a group of scofftics, and self proclaimed "critical thinkers". These people tend to throw a label of hoax out there immediately, at the first sign of good evidence. I think they do this for two reasons, number one, lack of having an open mind means they are not skeptical, but rather completely convinced Bigfoot is impossible, and number two, and probably most importantly , they are eager to get a "label" on the evidence, to produce doubt right away. This enables them to lay the ground work for ridiculing anyone who attempts to give it some serious measure after the fact.

This is not skepticism, this is an argument technique that has made its way into acceptance somehow on these forums. This is always a mystery to me, as to what drives people to be this way? Do they have an agenda? Does it make them feel superior,almost like a bully thing?

Any evidence presented, is automatically labeled here, making this a good place not to present evidence. That is why you see serious researchers such as Timbergiant refuse to participate, they know, no matter what they present as part of their research, it is automatically suspect, and will subject them to character assassination.

Having said all that, the key is, to watch the evidence, and decide for yourself what it means to you. The opinions you here on a forum like this are just that, opinions, and most are from people not qualified to give their opinions any weight what so ever. What they say here, only has as much relevancy as you give it. You can bet your bottom dollar, that professionals such as Dr Bindernagel, Dr Meldrum, or Dr. Ketchum do not give a rats behind what arm chair, unqualified,internet scofftic has to say, so try not to get caught up in it your selves.

BRAV-FREAKING-O!

They only employ "critical thinking" to proponent arguments, never to their own.

Which makes them more hypo-critical thinkers than anything else...

[Guest]

I have an open mind. By the definition taken from this board I am a "knower".

That being said, as a person who is very much doing research on this animal, I have never been treated as a 'Hoaxer". That is because the evidence I found was hair and scat etc. Physical evidence that can be examined and tested by credible/credentialed third party.

You must be forthcoming and credible at every step. If you tell no lies and give all context and it is GOOD evidence who cares what they say anyway? You are in the right!

I really think it takes layers of evidence to be sure. Hair, scat and prints are good. Not good enough without photo / video / DNA evidence of the highest order. That or a body.

[Guest BastetsCat]

In a sense the ones with closed minds are just as guilty as the 'hoaxer' for attention.

'Oh ya I saw that report and I was the first to say it was a hoax and I used of three pages of threads arguing my point.'

[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 number of people involved isn't important. If a human being has a psychological need for attention, they will act out in ways in the hope of getting attention. Often times it's more about who is paying attention not how many are.

You also don't have to publicly declare yourself a hoaxer in order to derive pleasure from the debate your hoax has generated.

Also, to be clear, I'm not declaring this or that event to be a hoax or person A or B to be a hoaxer - I'm speaking generally as to why evidence from researchers is perceived in a different light than complete strangers to the subject. To deny there is a underlying motivation to present yourself in a positive light to a peer group is to deny basic human psychology. We know for a fact that individuals *do* hoax the bigfoot commmunity. Almost always those individuals were involved in the community beforehand. That means that when someone comes up with something - especially something new and very high quality - it should be suspected to rigorous analysis before we accept it as concrete evidence in support of sasquatch's existence or activity.

I don't see how having standards is a "scoffitical" position.

[Guest]

I guess its all in how its presented Shado.....many of these people are witness's, and some are experiencing some anxiety and shock over what they have witness'd. They are seeking answers, comfort, and maybe to talk with people with similar experiences. They think, hey, here is a Bigfoot forum, I can get this off my chest, experience the relief of sharing my event with like minded people, who also are seeking answers, and comfort.

What do they get for this? A group of hard core skofftics who start asking them what medication they are on, or imply they are liars, or perhaps they fell for a hoax, etc.

Its ok to ask these kinds of questions, its ok to be skeptical, its even ok to say " well I am skeptical, and I am sure there is some other explanation"

Its not ok to disrespect,belittle, or ridicule the "believers"

Anyone with "standards" understands presentation, there is a decided lack of that at times.

Don't take it personally Shado, I am not talking about you, I am talking with you,

[Guest]

^Yes, there is a world of difference between honest skepticism (small "s") and what we have passing for it on this forum and a universe of difference between here and JREF.