Guest Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm interested to know the mentality behind hoaxers, because it honestly baffles me. Can anyone help me understand it, because it seems like an unfathomable mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 27, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted March 27, 2013 Ego, the desire to try and make others look foolish, control, things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I think it depends on the hoaxer. For some, the potential for profit. Others might be in it for attention. For most, I'm betting it's seen as a prank or joke. Edited March 27, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I think it's overwhelmingly a desire to put one over on people that one sees as lunatics or soft in the head. This is why most of them are so bad they can be tossed with minimal review. Most of the videos I've seen are cheap pranks. P/G; Peguis, Manitoba; and the Freeman footage are just about the only ones I've seen that are interesting. Most of the reports I have read I can chalk up to one of only three things: 1) hospitalizable mental or sensory condition; 2) big fat lie; or 3) what the witness says they saw. And I just don't see what the motivation in most of them for lying would be. It's my belief that we don't see but a bare few of the prank reports that doubtless get sent to the websites. I'm betting almost none of them get interviewed by a researcher; and most of the ones that do, get exposed. Lying requires skill past a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I also think that certain folks hoax, then bring in some of the 'experts' to try and show 1 of 2 (or both) things. 1) The 'experts' cannot truly determine the authenticity of subjects or tracks. 2) The 'experts' knowingly omit evidence that would be indicative of hoaxing to further bolster the BF phenom and subsequent monies that could be made. Of course, this only works if the hoaxer admits to, then shows how the hoax was done, and the 'oversights' of the 'experts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV FOOTER Posted March 27, 2013 Admin Share Posted March 27, 2013 I would venture to say that hoaxers have some issues going on in their heads. Maybe they didn't get enough attention as a child. Maybe they want their 15 minutes of fame. Maybe they want to meet Matt Moneymaker. LOL. This is up for arguement, but most hoaxers are not very good, sure initially it may stick, but eventually is debunked. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I have described a certain type of hoaxer in the past on this forum. and I use the term, Ivan Marks Syndrome, That's someone whom at first might have found something of merit, and was the center of attention for awhile. After the attention dies down they want it back so they start hoaxing things to keep interest going. Works for them to until they get caught. Others just want to see if they can fool the researchers, for no other reason then to able to say, Got ya! The popularity of Finding Bigfoot I am sure is going to looked on as a challenge to some to see if they can pull something off for no other reason than to see them selves on television. What ever the reason it is up to researchers to expose when ever hoaxing is detected. Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 BF is a great target for hoaxers...in fact, it's an ideal target. All phenomenon of questionable existance are. I will venture to say, BF may soon be eliminated from this category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I will venture to say, BF may soon be eliminated from this category. How so? Until a corpse or a living specimen is produced I think doubt will always remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MoMoMafia Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 It runs the gamut, goofy kids being goofy, to serious hoaxers trying to make a buck or to discredit people they feel worthy of ridicule. The goofy kids you can laugh off, the rest of them...not so much. But the Foot community is both patient and forgiving,.....look at some of long threads on here that....geeze....are so transparent as to be not worth of discussion. In the end its the same as it ever was. MMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Byrne Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I think in the case of serious skeptic/hoaxers, it is for self validation. If they are able to fool some people, then they can extrapolate that everyone has been fooled and their skeptic viewpoint is validated. Certainly that is an oversimplification and other factors of pride and feeling superior to their mark must come into play. Attention and profit may fuel the flames, but it must take a very unusual set of circumstances to lead one down that path I think steenburg's comment above about Ivan Marx types is spot on as well, but for a different kind of person. What I don't understand is how a skeptic can stay interested in a subject they think is bogus. When I truly doubt something, it's very hard (for me) to stay interested in it. If any long time skeptics are reading this, Please chime in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) ^^^I have always wondered the same thing myself. I doubt centaurs. If I saw the Centaurs Live! website, it might raise my eyebrows. It would raise them higher if I found out, wow, these folks aren't kidding, they believe this. But I wouldn't stay around; I'd wish them luck and move on. Nessie? Hope it's real; but I don't think the evidence supports the various claims as to what it is (cetacean; long-necked pinniped; plesiosaur; salamander; etc.). I will chime in with my opinion occasionally; but it is my opinion, and I'm not going to argue it with you. I'll just hope you find it, ...and come back here. I've put the question to skeptics before. Haven't gotten a response. Edited March 28, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 In the art world there are similar issues. People create hoaxes or faux works to try and fool experts either for monetary gain, or to discredit the expert. St. G- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 It is a known fact male bf hoaxers have small ::coocoo's::. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 28, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 28, 2013 I have a friend who thinks that hoaxing a BF would be insanely funny. I had to explain to him that its not that funny on account of its such a mundane thing to do; everyone is doing it- what is it that makes it so funny?? This has perplexed me for a long time and I don't think we will get a satisfying answer anytime soon. Its part of the nature of the BF phenomena... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts