Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) I gotta tell you, I was actually feeling there was something to the RD story. Just a little to make some fairy dust you know. But after hearing this outlandish call I really hear what he is capable of and I dont believe a word he says. I can't believe I had even the tiniest bit of faith in this dead bigfoot story. I'm feeling pretty dumb right now, that's for sure. Edited January 12, 2013 by simplyskyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explorer Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Cisco, I like your idea. There should be a Hall of Shame with the names of all known hoaxers with a factually driven description of what they did. I have seen this done for other anomalous topics, and you need a legal fund and lawyers in staff because some targets will fight back. How can any field of research learn and progress if the new generation of students/practitioners does not learn from the mistakes of others? Hoaxes and mistakes need to be documented and easily searcheable. New BF investigators also need to be aware of the level of hoaxing that has taken place in the past and how frequent it has been (are there any stats published?). Maybe BFF is not the correct medium, and there should be a independent website that takes this on. But maybe you can get the ideas from BFF to start such a project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explorer Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I never for a second believed the Ed Smith thing, nor the Rick Dyer thing, and I hate to say it, but the Melba Ketchum thing sends my bovine-manure sense off the scale. I'm not sure if this violates forum rules, but I've heard that there are establishments in Las Vegas that will secure "novelty" bets between private parties. I'd be interested in taking some of you "Knowers" and "I've got inside info" folks to task with some attractive odds. Irish73, There are websites that trade on information. The most well-known site is Intrade.com that has done well predicting election results in the US and other non-political events. Also Nate Silver, in his latest book The Signal and the Noise, wrote about how well betting on information works in improving forecasts (using Intrade as the example). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrade It appears that in 2012 the US government made it illegal for US residents to bet on Intrade. But, I believe it is still available for non-US residents. For example, take a look at some of their latest wild bets: that NASA will announce discovery of extraterrestrial life before midnight ET 31 Dec 2014. http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/ Thus if you really believe that the American Academy of Science (or pick your agency) will recognize BF as a new specie by end of Dec. 2013, then you can start a Market and bet your money on it. Or if you are an ultra-skeptic and don’t think BF will ever be recognized, you can sell short on that bet. Both believers and skeptics can buy and sell, and the market (if it has enough volume and trades), will find a price (the probability of the event happening). While it sounds like fun, there is some real money in play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Oh they won't have a case for libel. In order to claim libel you have to prove monetary damage occurred. The forum can't be held responsible for it's content so I say go for it, post up the list and put the names up there in the largest font size available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 Ed Smith posted today, on this forum, that he had been hoaxing for over 4 years. He also insinuated that the MABRC was aware of it or involved in some way. Regardless, he has admitted to being a hoaxer. I really think the mods should start a section, on this forum, where they can post KNOWN hoaxers as well as pertinent info about their hoaxing. A lot of people follow this forum and I really think we should extend them the courtesy of making them aware of hoaxers or hoaxes. I don't think members should be allowed to arbitrarily list hoaxers but the mods could in be in charge of the page and update it with new names after a hoax happens. What would it take to get this done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) I've come to accept the fact that Bigfootery is flooded with hoaxers. It seems the hoaxers are the ones who get most of the media attention and it leaves the entire community looking untrustworthy. Edited January 12, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 consequences?? >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 I've come to accept the fact that Bigfootery is flooded with hoaxers. It seems the hoaxers are the ones who get most of the media attention and it leaves the entire community looking untrustworthy. OS, There's no doubt that you are absolutely correct on this. However, part of the problem is that there is no way to really reference who is or who isn't a hoaxer. All you have to do, as an example for this, is go back 3 or 4 pages on some of these threads. You will find many people, especially new members, that will post videos, photos or other evidence of past hoaxes, believing they are real. This is why I believe we should have a section that lists every known hoax and/ or hoaxer. This way, new members, or anybody interested, can check and see if a video, photo or story is a known hoax or hoaxer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) ^^^^^ The Bigfoot merry go round or ground hog day!! Perhaps a section should be started called "Crap you don't know but should and we already know" or something like that and every newbie has to read it and take a test before they can post! Edited January 12, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 12, 2013 Author Share Posted January 12, 2013 ^^^^^ The Bigfoot merry go round or ground hog day!! Perhaps a section should be started called "Crap you don't know but should and we already know" or something like that and every newbie has to read it and take a test before they can post! Lol.... I gave you a plus for that one! However, I don't think we should include a test as that would probably result in a decrease of new members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GoLd Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Ed Smith posted today, on this forum, that he had been hoaxing for over 4 years. He also insinuated that the MABRC was aware of it or involved in some way. Regardless, he has admitted to being a hoaxer. On this forum? link or thread name please. Nevermind It's in the hoaxers thread, unfortunately his posts were heavily edited and don't offer up much info because of the editing. GoLd Edited January 12, 2013 by GoLd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 However, I don't think we should include a test as that would probably result in a decrease of new members. I think there should be a test, and may I attach a bill that requires a flu shot also, lot's of new people coming in could be sick, or get sick depending on what thread you get into ~ Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 Perhaps a psychological assessment as well? We may be able to filter out potential hoaxers before they even get the idea to pull one off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I think they should be ignored and shunned, not engaged in conversation and not given any more of the attention they crave. Fool me once ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I think they should be ignored and shunned, not engaged in conversation and not given any more of the attention they crave. Fool me once ... I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts