I Think We Are Seeing The Dawning Of A New Type Of Dishonesty In The Bigfoot World...

[Guest]

I think it is possible to start out with noble intentions, no thought of deception and get swept up into a world where dubious characters abound. I then think it is possible to try and make the evidence fit a desired outcome. The prospect of money and fame also may play into this phenomena. When a great deal of money is spent, even if it is someone elses money the pressure to succeed could motivate a maybe good researcher into becoming a hoaxer.

[Oonjerah]

@ LTBF

Ahhh! The old seduced by chance of fame and fortune, starry-eyed slide to ruin.

Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that. No one offered me fame and fortune!

[Guest]

Someone sets out on the most ambitious longterm study of Bigfoot in history, is their not pressure to deliver?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I think it is possible to start out with noble intentions, no thought of deception and get swept up into a world where dubious characters abound. I then think it is possible to try and make the evidence fit a desired outcome. The prospect of money and fame also may play into this phenomena. When a great deal of money is spent, even if it is someone elses money the pressure to succeed could motivate a maybe good researcher into becoming a hoaxer.

If there were a few punch lines in that post, I would swear it was one of mine, I am with ya on it and say "Kudos", I have an automobile themed response. Time and time again every claim that comes down the pike starts to drift into different lanes taking a few poor soles out with it, the driver try's to keep it straight in heavy rain but ends up spinning out of control, and eventually crashes into a wall and burns, and yet despite the total wreckage, some people will come along and try and clean up the mess in a desperate hope that somehow it was really the truth this time. well! if it didn't drive straight from the beginning, then one can expect an accident. Tim

[Guest joename]

How much money is in a hoax? We like to say zero, but that's not the answer. My belief in bigfoot dwindles with every mention of evidence that people can't share. There is big money to be made in bigfoot - especially if it doesn't exist.

I noticed that on the last "Finding Bigfoot" they were in Louisiana and the area was very spooky. They mentioned a couple times about ghosts, but not once did they say that ghosts don't exist, or that they didn't beleive. I was pretty impressed with that. The parellel lines that can be drawn between ghost hunters and finding bigfoot are many.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I used to think people would do it just for the money. But now I realize it's not really so much about the money. There's actually not much money to be made from doing a hoax. In fact, the only hoaxer that I know of that has made any real money in the past few years is Todd Standing.

Edited January 16, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Oonjerah]

My belief in bigfoot dwindles with every mention of evidence that people can't share.

There is big money to be made in bigfoot - especially if it doesn't exist.

A bigfoot hoax has no effect on bigfoot reality. It is only evidence of a conman.

No amount of hoaxing will change what I knew and believed before the hoaxes.

If I were a bigfoot, my view might be different: "Hey, if hoaxes make humans

disbelieve and ignore us, that is good!"

[Guest Darrell]

This behaviour isnt anything new people. Anybody who has been into this thing since the 60's or 70's can tell you it was the same back then. Secrets, money, inner circle players, it was all there. Its the same old pattern.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

You got that right ~Darrell~ The only thing that has changed, is some of the players on both sides.

Tim

Edited January 17, 2013 by RedRatSnake

[TimB]

I think it's sad that on this board, which is supposed to be healthily skeptical while still allowing for the possibility of existence, the only way we can state if someone is deceptive is if they officially post it themselves first. That process allows genuine con men and women to use this board to gain support from people for whatever motivation they have. It seems like this is the place to go to generate interest in their hoaxes. I think we should be able to call someone a liar if the direct evidence is there or if they continually say they have evidence but don't produce it publicly. It just seems right to me.

Tim B.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I took that approach last year when I first returned from some time off, It didn't fly very well, I do think you are right, some things that are posted on here, and have been for a while are just really too far out IMHO.

Tim

[Guest Darrell]

I agree Tim. We cant attack another member as part of the rules but sometimes it needs to be said that person is off their rocker, being deceptive, or outright dishonest.

[Guest]

I think we should be able to call someone a liar if the direct evidence is there or if they continually say they have evidence but don't produce it publicly. It just seems right to me.

Tim B.

Or any other descriptive adjective that happens to be accurate.

[AaronD]

Just a little suggestion: If you really feel that another member is being deliberately dishonest, or is fabricating facts and evidence, regardless of suspected motive, the best way to handle it is to keep asking questions--in a respectful and level headed manner. Engage them in conversation, without any ridicule plugs. Act "as if" you're really interested and keep pursuing the matter. Usually the perpetrator will run out of creativity and abort the claim, and even if not, his/her bare butt is in the wind for everyone to see; and you have broken no rules. You might even find yourself accumulating a pile of popularity points from observers.

[Guest]

I've noticed the development of a new type of dishonest "player" in the bigfoot world since the subject entered the mainstream. It's primarily on the discussion boards but I think it can apply to the whole "community", whatever that means.

There are 3 aspects to these new hoaxers:

1) They claim an expertise, whether that be as a debunker, researcher, habituater, or inner circle member.

2) They claim to have definitive proof about the truth or falsehood of an aspect of bigfoot or it's community.

3) They refuse to share the information for a cryptic reason.

The motivation seems to be an implied authority or simply attention. A true researcher would share their knowledge.

I propose we call them "Gamers". Playing the game at the expense of everyone else.

What do you think?

Tim B.

I think this could just be a product of the electronic era ie. the internet. Now we all talk to each other on the net, our thoughts spread amongst a huge community. If I had a Bigfoot experience and published my story out here on the net, I would have endless questions thrown at me - 'what do you think about this, about that yadda yadda' and I would have to constantly keep giving 'answers'. And I may give answers that I'm not sure I really believed but I would give them because people would want to hear an answer and an explanation. Do you think if Patterson and Gimlin had had their experience now, do you think they wouldnt claim to be the greatest researchers on the subject? Also, because of the internet, people interested in this subject really can become pretty knowledgable and 'academic' on the subject all because of the endless information they can find right on the their laptops.