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

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Oh yes, those people, lol. That is such a frustrating situation, and it is common sense that one should not claim that they have ANY type of evidence unless they are going to release said evidence at that time. I cannot even think of any circumstances where this would not apply, but there may be a couple, but those situations would not arise on the internet. That would be like press conference type stuff, and the announcement is just so people can schedule to be present at the event. That is really the only situation worthy or breaking this rule.

And while it is not seen as often, you are correct that there are people who claim they can disprove something, yet cannot and do not. I think that there are various reasons to explain why people do either of these things, but it really all comes down to attention in my opinion. And it must make some people feel good to fool other people. It seems these types of people are attracted to subject matter like this because they feel there is no proof, so there is a lot of room to wiggle and scam. And so they then come up with some halfway believable story, claim to have something they never even sought to obtain, and string people along as long as they possibly can. And THEN they either disappear for good, OR they tell of the extenuating circumstances that have not allowed them to release said evidence.

These types of claims were old and tired a year after the internet became popular, and the community has had to deal with them for over a decade. I vote that any thread which states that evidence will be provided at a later date should be removed. If there really is evidence, the public does not need to know about it until you are ready to release it. If for some reason you need someone's help, contact that person directly. I say this because then we will know who the real hoaxers are, and who is legitimate.

[Guest]

bumping this because I think it is a worthwhile thought to ponder and/or discuss.

[Guest DWA]

A firm grounding in the evidence alleviates the need to worry about this whatsoever.

[Incorrigible1]

"Whatsoever."

 

[Guest Darrell]

OMG, I stood in that exact spot 6 months after that was taken!  I have a pic somewhere I'll post if I can find it.

[Guest DWA]

"Whatsoever."

 

Or they can just see birds that no way exist and act cranky...hey, is that fur on that dude?  SEE?

[Guest]

Nobody knows anything much of BF. Anyone who says they do, and I'm not sure who you would refer to at this board, because no-one here does, anyone who does is full of donkey doughnuts.

 

So why the bla-bla-bla?

 

The only reason to claim to be an 'expert' is to make a buck, I have no problemo with that, claim away. Make a fool of yourself, make the BF 'community' look like a bunch of clowns. BF should not be made 'public' at this point, unless someone can come up with a remarkably compelling reason, which I have never seen.

[Incorrigible1]

Disagree, Wag, in that there are those upon this forum that claim to discern three separate species of bigfoot, those that claim to commune telepathically with them, and those that claim to have had multiple encounters with the creature.

 

Actually agree with your statement nobody knows anything much of BF, but must point out there are those that claim much and provide precious little. Oh, they suggest and hint, but when it comes down to it, provide about as much as have I.

[ShadowBorn]

 

What's the difference between a judger and some one who evaluates the evidence at hand?

 

Tim

It might not mean much to most and sure some of us do not come on here to tell a story just so that we can be ridiculed, or to be judge by our peers. How see this question asked is that those who have had contact with these creatures , or have researched them do have rights.  Right's to evaluate and judge the evidence at hand just as those who are skeptical. we can say that there have been hoaxes pulled but there has also been things that have not been able to have been explained. But one thing that has always happen is that hoaxers or lets say "gamers" have always been caught , maybe not quickly but the truth has always come out. This forum should be about the truth and should help those who are having problems dealing with these creatures who we are not even close to understanding but as a whole can come up with idea's to what it could be that we are dealing with.

[BobbyO]

 

Actually agree with your statement nobody knows anything much of BF, but must point out there are those that claim much and provide precious little. Oh, they suggest and hint, but when it comes down to it, provide about as much as have I.

Completely agree, and the brutal truth there are few to none who do actually provide anything goo din the way of evidence of this things existence.

However, as always, I have the upmost respect for people that get out on the field and try to find it as opposed to someone who doesn't of course.

[southernyahoo]

People who want bigfoot evidence can share the burden of going and getting it like anyone else trying to do so. If the evidence is shared, there is no fowl. You can disagree with interpretations of it, or maybe even prove it's hoaxed, but tread carefully in that territory.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Yes, but when scientists prove a new species, I see what it is they proved.

 

And it's not a hank of hair that came off a stump.

[southernyahoo]

If it provides DNA, according to the scientists, it need not be anymore than hair or a pinky bone or a tooth. So hair is admissable. Why do you think Sykes, Disotell, Ketchum , Fahrenbach and Mionczynski bother with such samples?

[Guest DWA]

Because - and maybe this is a good thing - they refuse to learn the lesson, which is:

 

Nobody in the mainstream will accept as proof anything less than an identifiable body part, if not a body, belonging to no known animal.

 

If you have my DNA at the crime scene, you have nothing...unless you have me.  Or have DNA previously gotten, directly from me, and not from a stump, on file.

 

DNA traces back to something known.  Absence evidence science will accept of that something, it cannot stand as proof.

 

(A pinky bone or a tooth are potentially acceptable as distinctive if no known animal can be found with those specific items.  But that's what I mean by "identifiable body part.")

[southernyahoo]

Actually hair has identifiable morphology too. On DNA and hair, if they can provide the entire mitochondria, it can tell you what species or closest known species whether you have any other identifiable body part or not. Don't try to confuse species ID with identification of idividuals of a species. It's two different things.