Hoaxes, Hoaxers, Frauds, And Con-Men In The Bigfoot Community

[Guest]

I don't think it is fair to blame an entire organization for the acts of a small few...or even one. The question should not be, who is to blame, but what can we learn from this? Just my opinion.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Perhaps some better policing of the organization/s from within would help with relations, clear and transparent action, that way everyone would know who is associated with them and who is not.

Tim

[Guest]

That is a very reasonable and sound approach Simplyskyla..

When these things are over, I look for the how and why - we already know in this situation the "who" is Ed. We know how he did it. But, we don't know why.. Not sure if we can even speculate on that here - but these are the things I think about at the end of a hoax.

I don't think it is fair to blame an entire organization for the acts of a small few...or even one. The question should not be, who is to blame, but what can we learn from this? Just my opinion.

I think that is a very reasonable and sound approach.

[Cisco]

The BFF is very open as to what can be said on this forum. Some organizations just don't allow it. Just take a look at the BFRO forum and you'll see what I mean. If the MABRC wants to defend one of their own, that's their prerogative. You really can't compare one to the other. Just look at the traffic on the BFF, compared to the traffic on the MABRC. They may get one or two new posts a day! The BFF gets a post every ten seconds.

I have no personal issue with the MABRC and even Ed Smith. I was not personally affected by either one.

However, if the MABRC is interested in its perception, within the BF community, it would be good PR to apologize to the individuals that were berated for commenting on Ed Smiths credibility. If they don't care what people think, and all they want to do is go back to their research and forget about this whole fiasco, then more power to them.

I'm just grateful for the freedom we have on this forum. It makes for very interesting discussion.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Thanks. Once I get to a computfer I will give you a couple of facts which I know from this entire affair. This smartphone keypad is killing me.

Skip the post, send me a PM, I'll give ya the skinny on why I feel like I do.

Tim

[Drew]

Dr. Louis Leakey would have to qualify as a hoaxer then I guess.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/history/leakey/dian-fossey-appendix-2013.html

[Guest]

Before I start this - let me say - I am not defending DW or anyone else - I am simply pointing out something in your comment Cisco I find interesting and adding what I know. I always look forward to your posts, so please do not think I am coming down on you - but you touched on a much larger issue - I think is worthy of discussion. So, I will stick out my neck and hope people get my point.

I have no personal issue with the MABRC and even Ed Smith. I was not personally affected by either one.

We are all "personally affected" by a hoaxer or the hoax itself in some way. If that were not the case, we would not even care to find out if the story is true before we find out it's a hoax. While it may not keep us up at night or cause us to spend hours pacing in front of our computer, it does affect us personally. We are still talking about it. We feel used, abused and our trust violated. Those things are personal.

However, if the MABRC is interested in its perception, within the BF community, it would be good PR to apologize to the individuals that were berated for commenting on Ed Smiths credibility. If they don't care what people think, and all they want to do is go back to their research and forget about this whole fiasco, then more power to them.

Perception.. Man, I hate that word. It's really a double edged sword in this community. Seriously. If DW or anyone else in his situation did everything to please everyone -- someone would come along and say, "He is doing all this to simply make people happy so his new member list on the forum rises" or "Sales must be down in the Cafe Press shop - so he is simply trying to bring back sales." Whether he has a Cafe Press store or not.

This happens all the time. Never mind the fact that DW clearly stated, "The buck stops with me". What he is saying is pretty clear to me. During all this I spoke with Darren a number of times. I asked him point blank on the day I found out Ed put my name in that post along side Dr. Meldrums --"Did you know Ed was going to post this text message announcing the "Daisy in a box" capture story - before he posted it?" He told me he had no idea. He found out the same way we all did. I spoke with Darren daily - sometimes 2-3 times a day - and not once did I ever hear him backtrack or change his story. Darren will also tell you - I did not treat him any differently because I know him. My first phone call to him was not a pleasant one (for him). But - he did not do anything but answer my questions. He returned every phone call I made to him - and has fully cooperated with the investigations (to the extent that he could) that followed after Ed announced the end of the "bridging group" (I still think that's a stupid name). I believe Darren was honest with me. I have no reason to think he was trying to do anything but keep everyone informed as to the situation -- and that's all he could do. Never once did he tell me he thought Ed's big story was legit. I asked him point blank what he thought during a number of phone calls - his answer, "Mel, I just don't know." He had as many questions as I did.

I hope DW does not get angry with me for saying this- but I am going to anyway because I think it's important. As time went on (with my involvement) and our conversations continued - DW's attitude became more and more down. You can hear it in someone's voice when they are upset. As time went on I was becoming more and more concerned for DW and his health. As most of you know he has recent issues with his heart. I said to DW, "with your recent health issues, you don't need this right now." His reply? "I know Mel, but what am I supposed to do now? Everyone already thinks I am involved." DW felt like he needed to stay involved because he felt he was close to Ed. He thought he could get the truth out of Ed - because DW thought they were friends. DW also felt he owed it to the community to get as much information out of Ed as possible. I agreed - but I hated that DW was risking his own health with all this stress and aggravation. My concern for DW's health was not me feeling sorry for him either - it was genuine concern and I hoped he would simply turn this over to someone else. He felt obligated. I could not talk him out of it. I tried to - because there are more important things in this life - than trying to out a hoax.

During our first conversation I said to DW point blank, "If this goes south - you do know you will have to finally break all ties with Ed?" DW said, "I know, and I have already started talking with Randy about that." So - DW already knew what he had to do - and he followed through. He had to admit someone he thought was a friend hoaxed him and his organization - then he had to ban him and break all ties. I'm sorry folks - but if I thought my friend hoaxed me -- it would be heartbreaking. Yes, I do have feelings.

This situation brought about the first phone call I have ever had with Randy Harrington. Many of you already know - Randy and I disagree on quite a bit and have not been real friendly. But, when I messaged Randy and asked him to call me ---- he did within minutes - and didn't ask why. I asked Randy the same question - did he know Ed was going to post the "Daisy in a box" capture story text message - BEFORE it hit the message board. Randy told me he had no idea. He was driving in his vehicle when his phone started blowing up with text messages about it. Now, Randy is not obligated to talk to me. We don't hate each other - but I would not call us friends. He could have told me to "mind your own business" or simply refused to call me - but he did not. He answered all my questions and expressed his concern for the entire situation.

Now, I bring up Ed's post again (and the inclusion of my name) because it did not matter how many times I told people that I had no idea what Ed was talking about - people were still speculating about my involvement and making flat out accusations that I did know before he posted it. So - it did not matter what I said. I am just grateful that most people know the person I am and dismissed these accusations.

Maybe there should also be sanctions against those in this community who put out fraudulent information as if it is the truth? If we are going to discuss hoaxers - I do think that qualifies. Someone unattached to a situation is attempting to create misinformation to rile up the community and make them think something that is not true.

Just for clarity - I am not saying anyone on this board did that - or you Cisco - but it did happen.

So, instead of working to try and figure out how to keep this from happening again - it seems like everyone wants to talk about how much DW should suffer. People want to exact their "pound of flesh".. If DW was guilty of anything - it is believing a friend would not lie to him. Ed worked on that friendship for 4 years - so his ultimate hoax could blow up and end within 2 weeks. How do you spot someone like this? Anyone could be susceptible to someone who wants to be their friend for nefarious purposes. Frankly, I don't know how any of us avoid this in the future. That bothers me. But, I know there are others in this world who would do the very same thing.

If you don't like the MABRC message board - then don't become a member and don't go there. If you don't like the BFRO message board - don't sign up and go there. There are good people within these groups - people that do not frequent other message boards. It is not fair to judge a website forum - by a few who we may like or dislike.

all they want to do is go back to their research and forget about this whole fiasco, then more power to them.

Some would say that is simply not giving the hoaxer more publicity. Which is good and something we would want to encourage. Most hoaxing is about attention...

I am not denying that people don't have the right to be angry or upset right now. But, I think that energy might be better focused on how we might keep these things from happening in the future. I have no clue how that can happen - but I hope we can figure something out because this is a whole new level of hoaxing and one that frankly makes me sick and really scares me all at the same time.

HOW do we spot a hoaxer who first becomes a friend????? Is it even possible??? That is a darn good question.

Just to reiterate - I am not defending DW or anyone else - DW is perfectly capable of defending himself. I am simply discussing what I know - and what I talked about with DW. I hope this post does not violate any forum rules that is not my intent either. If I did in some way - I apologize now.

All of this is just my personal opinion.

[Sasfooty]

Since I haven't bothered to read all 8 or 9 pages of this, somebody may have already pointed this out. But has anybody here stopped to think that the hoax may be that there is a BF in a box, but "Ed" may have got another offer that he couldn't refuse? Things like that happen....

Where did all the skeptics run off to? They aren't very good skeptics if they haven't given this some serious attention.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Some things in this BF world are just not worth bothering with, Daisy in a box is one of them, the only thing those guys had in a box, was the beers they were drinking while they rolled on the floor laughing at how many folks fell for it.

[Guest GoLd]

This was posted on the bigfoot evidence blog, and I think the way this group handles "bigfoot in a box" type claims is the responsible way to go about it.

http://bigfooteviden...ion-policy.html

GoLd

Edited January 16, 2013 by GoLd

[Cisco]

GoLD

I was just about to post the same thing. I really think that the BFF should have a very similar policy. This would stop and and all motivation for people to claim they have a dead or live Bigfoot.

It simple, clean and easy to understand.

So, what do we have to do to make this happen?

[Guest]

So, we should ignore even Dr. Melba Ketchum and the alleged work she is doing? You can see the flaws with this right? While I agree with Dr. Johnson's over all idea - how do you stop someone from giving a Press Conference?? If you think the next hoaxer is going to care that the entire bigfoot community is ignoring them - so they won't call a press conference - you are wrong. No one asked this community when the Georgia Hoax Press Conference was called - and aired on CNN...... Does this include the claims made by "habituators"??

There is no ruling body in this community - and this community is vast. You can't force people to do anything when they are funding this out of their own pocket - or do not belong to an organization. I don't think many are aware of how many researchers are out there that never log onto the various bigfoot pages. They are completely and totally out of public view. How do we stop them?

Good luck enforcing this. This gets tossed around everytime a new hoax comes about - but there is no quick fix for a community that answers to no one - and does not have to.

[Guest GoLd]

Melissa,

I pretty much already am ignoring the Ketchum stuff, If she has anything of value I hope she releases it one day, but I'm through with any claim that starts with the disclaimer " I have proof, But....".

This thread is entitled Hoaxes, hoaxers and frauds, I posted a link that I think will help to eliminate most of the publicity hoaxes, hoaxers and frauds get (gullible and enablers should be included).

My 2 cents,

GoLd

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Like has already been said, trying to resolve this hoax issue is just not going to work, use common sense and past history, if it's real it will be almost instant, it won't take weeks, months or years, for an answer.

Also keep in mind that hoaxes however you feel about them, are what keeps the forum moving at times.

Tim

[Guest]

I am ignoring most of the ketchum stuff myself - seems like a waste of time until she publishes something. I pay little attention to most things said anymore. I should say, I am not coming down on you - I am simply responding to that article - which - does have it's merits but does not address the overwhelming issue. The things discussed in that article will simply be ignored. Why? There is no governing body of people who decide what is good information and what is bad. People like to discuss what could possibly be going on in the community - but they won't if they think someone is going to call them a hoaxer for simply posting a link to audio.

What about the witness who is new and says, "I seen bigfoot, I have proof, because I seen it." They feel this is legitimate proof for them - and the sighting may be all the proof they need. I won't call that person a hoaxer for simply saying that. Who am I - if I have not investigated the claim. Just one more opinion in the crowd - and what if I am wrong? Do we want to scare away the few witnesses we get to come forward? There is not an overwhelming amount of people who will discuss their stories. So, when we take a report and release it for discussion - will we be called hoaxers if the overwhelming opinion on the various forums is that this report is a hoax - whether or not the investigator says it is?

Until a report or claim is investigated - all we have are opinions. And, I hope this community wants more than opinions before we start calling people hoaxers. The word will lose it's stigma if it's assigned to everyone who discusses a situation..

These are all questions we should all think about before we start throwing around opinion and trying to make them sound like fact. Yes - if someone says they have a body - they NEED to prove it. But, there is no way we will stop people from talking about it. That's how we get information and understand - and make our own conclusions.

The idea by Johnson has it's merits - but it is on the verge of taking us down a road where everyone is calling everyone a hoaxer - and all discussion may come to a ceasing halt.

I'm not sure that should happen.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Melissa