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

[Oonjerah]

Skoftic, footer, bleever. All used frequently on this board.

Tim B.

Is not Footer a neutral (not derogatory) term, referring to all of us who're interested in Sasquatch?

[Guest]

Well I think it goes with out saying, if there is proof that it is true that someone is a "gamer" , "hoaxer", and I fear to go on in case I type a forbidden word that I'm supposed to intuitively know is forbidden....be that as it may be, I think you ought to be able to post the truth, good or bad. If we are just a forum that is a small microcosm of the bigfoot community then our opinion ought not to matter either way. I think it would be a refreshing change instead of having to tip toe around adjectives.

Edited January 13, 2013 by CTfoot

[Guest]

Interesting topic, TimB. But, please tread carefully not to name or allude enough information about a certain person to call them a "gamer" as it will soon be added to our list of bad words due to your derogatory definition Having said all that, I do agree there is a lot of non-transparency going on out there--to the point of making bigfootery boring. But, just to play devil's advocate; say you had a tribe of squatches living in the woods near you. You and them have become friends. You trade favors and even have meals together.....maybe you'd like to share this with other footers, but don't want to risk a.) sounding like a fantasy seeker, and b. ) your friendship with the squatches cuz you know everyone's gonna wanna have a look see. Just a thought.

That is a fallacy, and is part of what Tim is talking about. If people aren't interested in backing their claims, why are they interested in telling anybody?

[Guest]

Where is this tar pit I keep reading about?

[MarkGlasgow]

Most of this is all very subjective though isn't it? If there is footage or a picture we can safely analyse the content and pass judgement on our findings, however if it's a story related by guy on a Bigfoot forum then it's a whole different ball game.

Most days I will read stuff on here that will make me shake my head, whilst others may respond to the same post in a much more positive way.

I try hard to keep an 'open mind' but recent events make it just a little more difficult.

[Guest Claire]

But, just to play devil's advocate; say you had a tribe of squatches living in the woods near you. You and them have become friends. You trade favors and even have meals together.....maybe you'd like to share this with other footers, but don't want to risk a.) sounding like a fantasy seeker, and b. ) your friendship with the squatches cuz you know everyone's gonna wanna have a look see. Just a thought.

I can understand why that would be tempting, it's pretty clear that if a species of primate like this was proven to exist it would be 'open season' for a lot of people. However I think that stance would be just playing into what Tim is talking about, another person who has 'ultimate proof' but won't share it. Anyone in that situation would have more credibility if they didn't talk about it at all, otherwise they just look to be wanting notoriety for it's own sake. Of course we then wouldn't know anything about it.

Everyone should be wary of people claiming definitive proof without any evidence to back it up.

However I don't think what Tim is suggesting is unique to the Bigfoot world. With the rise of the internet and social networking, we've seen their impact on society has increased exponentially. We now live in a world where anyone can get their 15 minutes of fame from the comfort of their own house, with nothing more than a cellphone camera and youtube. Trolls basically, but they are a subset of everything these days - not one specific group.

You can probably tell from the tone of my posts that I personally don't think Bigfoot exists, there's just no objective evidence to suggest it. However it's not impossible and I have huge respect for the people who go out every week trying to find that evidence.

Edited January 13, 2013 by Claire

[SweatyYeti]

Ask me in the Tar Pit and I'll tell you what I really think. Not here. Lost a perfectly good post because of locale.

I agree, BP....it seems to me that the 'Tar Pit' would have been the better place for this thread.

I like the term 'Gamer'....I think it's very fitting, for some people involved in this subject. A related term that also has it's place...is 'Fools'.

I have some specific members in mind...but I can't mention who...here.

[david75090]

Cant we all just be called members?

Calling someone a "member" could have it's connotations too.

[bipedalist]

Sounds like a bunch labels/judgements to me, the examples are endless and accomplishes discord, division, etc. Guess that is what the Tar Pit was for?

Guess you would be wrong, unless that is what you would have in mind if you joined it. It basically can be a different leveling kind of experience where things nonBigfoot can be talked about too without worrying about where to place it on this general forum.

You make it what you want it to be (after you pay an entry fee to support the licenses, renewals, chat fees, server platform hosting fees and all the other stuff that costs close to 700-800 dollars or more a year to keep up.).

Edited January 13, 2013 by bipedalist

[SweatyYeti]

Sounds like a bunch labels/judgements to me, the examples are endless and accomplishes discord, division, etc.

Guess that is what the Tar Pit was for?

Actually, the ability to speak freely allows for more understanding between people....not less. And, 'more complete understanding' can accomplish both 'division'....and 'unity', between people.

But, I think that 'freedom of speech' is the 'way to go'...regardless of it's effects.

Edited January 13, 2013 by SweatyYeti

[AaronD]

Where is this tar pit I keep reading about?

The tar pit is part of the Premium membership package. If you have 75 posts or higher and a decent warn history, for just $20 you may join by sending a PM to http://bigfootforums...istration-desk/ or to our chief admin, See Te Cah NC

I can understand why that would be tempting, it's pretty clear that if a species of primate like this was proven to exist it would be 'open season' for a lot of people. However I think that stance would be just playing into what Tim is talking about, another person who has 'ultimate proof' but won't share it. Anyone in that situation would have more credibility if they didn't talk about it at all, otherwise they just look to be wanting notoriety for it's own sake. Of course we then wouldn't know anything about it.

Everyone should be wary of people claiming definitive proof without any evidence to back it up.

Yes, but there is a distinction between someone who has great evidence but keeps it a secret for such reasons as I gave, and someone who has really nothing but a desire for attention.

You can probably tell from the tone of my posts that I personally don't think Bigfoot exists, there's just no objective evidence to suggest it. However it's not impossible and I have huge respect for the people who go out every week trying to find that evidence.

Then you are what we call a "skeptic", but this is not derogatory. When you say you don't believe because no objective evidence, and also that you have huge respect for the people who go out to find evidence, you are a very respectable skeptic and your perspective is welcomed here. What we frown on is character slamming and harsh name-calling. Attack the argument, not the arguer--we always say.

[Guest]

I think if you really have something, and have no desire to provide proof, you aren't going ro get on a forum and talk about it. I say guilty until proven inncencent, it's the way of the 'foot and appropriate for the enthusiasts involved.

Edited January 13, 2013 by CTfoot

[AaronD]

^ You present a good point as well, CTfoot. And I'm certain that, IF squatches really exist, there are people out there who interact with them and have not said a word.

[georgerm]

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

What do you think?

Tim B.

We probably have some of these "gamers" yet there is practically no way to prove it. They can make all kinds of claims about BF such as what Janice Cater did and,yet we can be fooled at first. It's the nature of the beast we call a forum.

[indiefoot]

There is no way to conclude if someone is a "gamer" without becoming a "judger".