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

[Guest]

Simply because someone pulled a prank at one point in their life doesn't mean they are a hoaxer or a fraud.

The intention is important.

I agree, but how can you know the intention?

[Guest]

SY is correct. Freeman made one set of wooden feet to study how the tracks would look on comparison to his actual trackway findings. He was trying to debunk and challenge his own evidence as far as he could. He was a true pioneer of EFFECTIVE research well ahead of the others that all had issues with others work. The media makes their spin taking comments out of context to make him look a fool and the rest is history. He had figured out the travel route of the local troup and they became comfortable with him as well.

Did he publish the results of this experiment of wooden feet versus real bigfoot feet?

[Guest RayG]

Or he doesn't want to miss out on the discovery of the century...

Discovery of the century and they call in other bigfoot enthusiasts. Typical I suppose, but it conjures up images of facepalms for me. Wouldn't it be far more effective to convince some mainstream scientists? Even if Dr. Meldrum comes away convinced, unless he brings a finger with him, or clear photos, video, is 'science' going to believe him? He, nor none of the other people on the bridging team could hardly be called unbiased.

Drag Miss Daisy over to the people at Nature and see what happens.

RayG

[Guest Kerchak]

Exactly what I was getting at. Because Freeman was the only one who found the bigfoot evidence could mean that he was a hoaxer, but could also mean that he was the only one looking effectively.

Amazing isn't it? The skeptics and cynics are always asking why nobody finds evidence of bigfoot.....and then when people do the same skeptics and cynics declare those people to be hoaxers.

Ya gotta laugh at the logic.

[Guest]

Did he publish the results of this experiment of wooden feet versus real bigfoot feet?

I would ask him but he's dead.

PS: I have not read his two books, the Walla Walla one or the BF of the Blues. I hope to get them. They are highly recommended.

[norseman]

I agree, but how can you know the intention?

For me that would be:

1) Do they readily admit to it being a joke when asked? A joke has to have a punch line.

2) Are they using the "joke" as a means of bettering themselves?

Does anybody think that Butchykid is a hoaxer?

[Rockape]

Discovery of the century and they call in other bigfoot enthusiasts. Typical I suppose, but it conjures up images of facepalms for me. Wouldn't it be far more effective to convince some mainstream scientists? Even if Dr. Meldrum comes away convinced, unless he brings a finger with him, or clear photos, video, is 'science' going to believe him? He, nor none of the other people on the bridging team could hardly be called unbiased.

Drag Miss Daisy over to the people at Nature and see what happens.

RayG

Or they could just pay for you to go give it a look. If you said it was true, that would be good enough for me, and I mean that.

And as for your list here, I really wish you would be more open to how it is comprised. This could be a valuable reference tool going forward, but there needs to be a separation between known hoaxes/hoaxers and what we suspect are hoaxes/hoaxers. I agree with most of your list, but there are a few that really need another category.

Janice Carter for example, I think there is no truth there, but we don't know for sure, plus I think there were mental issues at play.

Also Freeman. I tend to agree with you on him, but we don't know for sure.

[Guest kchuskey]

If you include Biscardi, Whitton, and Dyer on this list, then you need to include Steve Kulls. For the record..I'd also include Dave Shealy.

[Cisco]

Ray

Have you updates the list at all? It looks like it has not changed since you first started this thread. Maybe you should update it as we progress? Otherwise, you'll end up with repeat suggestions.

Here's one for the 3rd time: Linda Newton Perry

[Guest JohnnyWalker]

Discovery of the century and they call in other bigfoot enthusiasts. Typical I suppose, but it conjures up images of facepalms for me. Wouldn't it be far more effective to convince some mainstream scientists? Even if Dr. Meldrum comes away convinced, unless he brings a finger with him, or clear photos, video, is 'science' going to believe him? He, nor none of the other people on the bridging team could hardly be called unbiased.

Drag Miss Daisy over to the people at Nature and see what happens.

RayG

Good points RayG

Hopefully it ends up there with mainstream scientists. So why don't they start there -- with mainstream scientists?

Very good question. You just made me do a face-palm-plant. Doh!

[Guest]

For me that would be:

1) Do they readily admit to it being a joke when asked? A joke has to have a punch line.

2) Are they using the "joke" as a means of bettering themselves?

Does anybody think that Butchykid is a hoaxer?

Do bad jokes count? There are thoughts here but people will deny hoaxing with "I'm just joking"

Some will claim they are just demonstrating a principle.

How can you tell?

When Penn and Teller did their bigfoot film with an actor for their show, they had a situation they were testing. I consider this a hoax of a lesser nature as they had a point of instruction for their viewers and they didn't actually give out the names of the bigfoot researchers they fooled. This wasn't to harm anyone but to teach. I can accept that sort of hoax.

If Freeman made wooden feet for experimental purposes then all for the good even if a few people may have been fooled. But if they were to pad evidence then that is a negative hoax.

I don't really know what was going on in any of their minds but I do have some measure of trust for them. The suspicion of hoaxing is still there regardless. Especially for Butchykid. Just because his attempt would be to play a joke on someone doesn't mean it wouldn't be a hoax. And the person he punks will still feel like crap.

[roguefooter]

There were no other footprints available? Human, horse, dog, tire? A "bigfoot" footprint would not be necessary for a demonstration.

Of course it's not necessary, but if you wanted to demonstrate how a bigfoot track would be cast for a bigfoot documentary, then casting what looks like a bigfoot track makes sense. Recreations are a common element of documentaries.

The 1975 mockumentary 'Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot' was based off of Patterson's original story. In the movie they go on an expedition, cast bigfoot tracks, and have a bigfoot encounter. Of course none of it was real- it was all recreated for the movie including the trackway and casting. If you really want to know Patterson's intentions then look no further than this movie.

Edited January 10, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest ajciani]

The only thing we have are the words of a rival researcher, made well after Patterson's death so even he didn't have a say. How do we know it even happened at all?

Hmm... Considering that, then Patterson doesn't belong on the list either. If he never even got a chance to respond to the rumor, then unless someone(s) credible come forward to claim they mailed in memberships and didn't receive their stuff, then a rumor is all it is.

Why would Meldrum get involved? He must think there's something to it. Or he doesn't want to miss out on the discovery of the century, just case there is.

Or perhaps:

1) Meldrum is not getting involved.

or

2) Meldrum has heard so many unfounded claims out of the MABRC, and so many privately passed disparaging comments about the MABRC, that he wants to see for himself.

I saw for myself. I doubt that "Ed Smith" is real, and "Team Quantra" doubly so.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Discovery of the century and they call in other bigfoot enthusiasts.

That is and has been one of the major problems with getting BF into mainstream science, if there is to be any really serious look at this BF mystery, it has to come from outside those known to be associated with the subject, IMHO there is a certain extent of shadiness going on and until that is put aside the present course will continue, constant repeats of the same ole claim over and over.

[Guest]

The daisy event and the follow on four and a half years was great entertainment. Bigfoot is NOT real.

I spend four and a half years spooking the MABRC, it's my belief that the are frauds. Four and a half years think about it.

If I have broken rules here then to the mods I apologize it was a nessesity for believability on the footrest part.

Edited January 12, 2013 by RayG
Removed inappropriate content.