Why Exactly Do Hoaxers Hoax In The First Place?

[Guest DWA]

Actually, you're wrong.

Or else, you know things that it's really impossible for our science to have a grasp of yet. How did you do that?

A guy I know says it this way: "Hyper-empiricism, to me, is ignorance masquerading as intelligence." What do we know about extraterrestrials (which BTW most mainstream astronomers pretty much conced there probably are)? What makes one think they would leave evidence that earth scientists would be able or willing to acknowledge?

No, actually, common sense dictates that one not rule out anything that is being consistently described by thousands of people - particularly when the knowledge base doesn't exist to do that.

To say that "thousands of people claim to have been abducted by aliens all around the world and their stories bare remarkable similarities to each other," and then just dismiss it without review, is to make a claim that makes sasquatch look pretty mundane. Your proof, sir.

[Guest]

Or else, you know things that it's really impossible for our science to have a grasp of yet. How did you do that?

A guy I know says it this way: "Hyper-empiricism, to me, is ignorance masquerading as intelligence." What do we know about extraterrestrials (which BTW most mainstream astronomers pretty much conced there probably are)? What makes one think they would leave evidence that earth scientists would be able or willing to acknowledge?

No, actually, common sense dictates that one not rule out anything that is being consistently described by thousands of people - particularly when the knowledge base doesn't exist to do that.

I know that Alpha Centuri is the closest star system to ours and it would take six years for us to get from here to there if we ever managed to travel at or around the speed of light. I know that space travel just to the moon requires an extraordinary amount of resources, never mind interstellar space travel. I know that alien life is pretty much a shoe in to exist. And I know it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to travel six light years and expend a lot of resources just to abduct a single person on a country road in the middle of the night on a middle of nowhere planet and then turn around and leave. That is common sense.

To say that "thousands of people claim to have been abducted by aliens all around the world and their stories bare remarkable similarities to each other," and then just dismiss it without review, is to make a claim that makes sasquatch look pretty mundane. Your proof, sir.

Provided, not quite proof but there you have it.

As for Bigfoot, I think it likely exists. And if it does it probably won't be the too far off future until we find irrefutable proof that they do.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Leftfoot

[Guest DWA]

Actually, we have no clue what would constitute "common sense" to creatures whose intelligence we know nothing about. Might be easier for them to do that than for us to walk to the mailbox. And keep in mind: thousands of them, right? And you're saying there's no evidence? Hmm. Maybe you have put in your very own post just why there isn't, eh?

Again. Assumptions without evidence don't wash.

There are any number of extraordinary claims I have absolutely no intention of pursuing. Nor of asking science to pursue. (And if you are gonna tell me that aliens are abducting us, I'm only reading the exec summary.)

But I'm keeping an open mind, if there's no evidence that those thousands of people are wrong.

[Guest]

When people claim to see Bigfoot there is sometimes evidence that they did, in fact, see Bigfoot and if there is such evidence I'm more likely to believe that they probably saw a Bigfoot. Track ways, hairs, photographs, audio recordings, and video. Right?

What evidence is there for alien abductions other than the victim's word that it happened? To be fair I don't think they're all making it up, some seem to really to really believe that it happened to them. But without evidence what is it other than some story?

And actually we can make several assumptions about alien life capable of traveling interstellar distances. For example, we can assume that they are intelligent creatures capable of reasoning if not compassion and morality. We can assume that they have a certain amount of curiosity because if they visit us they go way out of the way to do so. We can assume that they, and their ships, take up physical space and can leave physical traces.

And yet they don't.

Despite what religionists are so fond of saying, the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Leftfoot

[Guest Cowlitz2]

So I looked it up on the Internet, you know that means it is true..LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax

I liked what BobbyO said too.

[Guest]

From that link, the Piltdown Man was a hoax that was accepted as real for 40 years... So, I guess not all hoaxes are immediately exposed then?

[Guest DWA]

When people claim to see Bigfoot there is sometimes evidence that they did, in fact, see Bigfoot and if there is such evidence I'm more likely to believe that they probably saw a Bigfoot. Track ways, hairs, photographs, audio recordings, and video. Right?

What evidence is there for alien abductions other than the victim's word that it happened? To be fair I don't think they're all making it up, some seem to really to really believe that it happened to them. But without evidence what is it other than some story?

And actually we can make several assumptions about alien life capable of traveling interstellar distances. For example, we can assume that they are intelligent creatures capable of reasoning if not compassion and morality. We can assume that they have a certain amount of curiosity because if they visit us they go way out of the way to do so. We can assume that they, and their ships, take up physical space and can leave physical traces.

And yet they don't.

Despite what religionists are so fond of saying, the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

Actually, you can't assume that you will notice the physical space they are taking up and pick up on the phyiscal traces they are leaving. Otherwise we'd have confirmed sasquatch by now, right?

I mean think about this. Sasquatch is a critter, living right here. Been leaving sign forever - and you think it's real - and science doesn't - and you just think that bing, extraterrestrials won't get away with nothin' down here? Really?

People have shown one thing more than anything else: their unfailing ability to convince themselves that things they don't agree with aren't real.

Assumptions are deadly to science.

And I will take the folks who said - and it's right for reasons anyone can see if they think about it - that absence of evidence really is NOT evidence of absence over you. If you want to believe that, you can. But you're wrong.

From that link, the Piltdown Man was a hoax that was accepted as real for 40 years... So, I guess not all hoaxes are immediately exposed then?

Anthropology was in its infancy when Piltdown was done. Nonetheless, evidence that Piltdown didn't scan was coming in almost from the moment the bones were found. The final debunking of Piltdown came just about immediately after science had the body of knowledge in hand required to debunk it.

Ever since before Patterson rode into the woods, the knowledge required to debunk Patty has existed in spades. And nothing. After 45 years.

Edited March 29, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Actually, you can't assume that you will notice the physical space they are taking up and pick up on the phyiscal traces they are leaving. Otherwise we'd have confirmed sasquatch by now, right?

I think the reason for that is, as true believers (I needn't mention this but I'm not one) say, is that they take up physical space and leave the most of their physical traces in place that human seldomly go and can be confused for bears.

I mean think about this. Sasquatch is a critter' date=' living right here. Been leaving sign forever - [i']and you think it's real - and science doesn't [/i]- and you just think that bing, extraterrestrials won't get away with nothin' down here? Really?

Yeah, really. There might be a world of difference between extraterestrials and us, their society and technology might be so far beyond us that it might as well be magic of the gods as suggested by Arthur C. Clarke, but in the end they have to live in the same universe as us. And thus they have to live by the same laws of physics as us.

People have shown one thing more than anything else: their unfailing ability to convince themselves that things they don't agree with aren't real.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Assumptions are deadly to science.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Assumptions are neccessary or otherwise science has nothing to test against.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Leftfoot

[Cotter]

Well leftfoot.

Everything has to obey laws of physics....you are correct.

But what makes you think that WE as humans understand it all?

To the best of our knowledge, there cannot be space travel.

But 125 years ago, to the best of our knowledge, the atom was the smallest particle.

Heck, just today, we're still figuring out how objects of mass have gravitational pull....

I guess my point is, is that we have no idea the breadth of physics and what is truly capable of acheiving in a physical world.

Not to shift gears, but here's an interesting article. This is on Borneo, an island. Very finite size. How could a rhino go undetected for 20+ years on it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21963508

[Guest]

But what makes you think that WE as humans understand it all?

We don't, but neither do we know nothing.

To the best of our knowledge, there cannot be space travel.

We landed men on the moon and it's very realistic that we can land someone on Mars as well, so I think space travel is very much possible. Heck, interstellar travel isn't considered impossible either but it is considered impractical because it would take us 60+ years just to get to our closest extrasolar neighbor with current technology. That would be pretty much a one way trip for whomeever leaves on such a journey.

Heck, just today, we're still figuring out how objects of mass have gravitational pull....

Just because we don't understand gravity just yet is by no means reason enough to conclude that the laws of gravity are in any way wrong, though.

Not to shift gears, but here's an interesting article. This is on Borneo, an island. Very finite size. How could a rhino go undetected for 20+ years on it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-21963508

Interesting, thanks for sharing that

[Guest DWA]

I think the reason for that is, as true believers (I needn't mention this but I'm not one) say, is that they take up physical space and leave the most of their physical traces in place that human seldomly go and can be confused for bears.

It's been pretty conclusively shown that it's simply not a practical assumption that sasquatch can be confused with bears. Not just the very great physical differences, but simple human nature: when we see the unknown, we pigeonhole it into what we know. Even if we have to strain creduity to do it. (Read: it's very easy to rationalize a sasquatch you saw into a bear - as many, without doubt, have if it's real. One witness actually figured he'd seen a bear - with hands - and its muzzle shot off.)

Yeah, really. There might be a world of difference between extraterestrials and us, their society and technology might be so far beyond us that it might as well be magic of the gods as suggested by Arthur C. Clarke, but in the end they have to live in the same universe as us. And thus they have to live by the same laws of physics as us.

Actually, you just posted right there why I'm right. If it's so far beyond us as to appear magic, well, bingo.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Assumptions are neccessary or otherwise science has nothing to test against.

Science never uses an assumption unless it is a fact tested through the scientific method. The "assumptions" science uses are, in fact, facts. "People routinely misidentify something as sasquatch" isn't a fact, and it hasn't been tested. Nor has the assertion that they are actually seeing sasquatch, while we're on that. Might want to test that one, as your daily life is evidence of the accuracy of your perceptions in general.

Well leftfoot.

Everything has to obey laws of physics....you are correct.

But what makes you think that WE as humans understand it all?

To the best of our knowledge, there cannot be space travel.

But 125 years ago, to the best of our knowledge, the atom was the smallest particle.

Heck, just today, we're still figuring out how objects of mass have gravitational pull....

I guess my point is, is that we have no idea the breadth of physics and what is truly capable of acheiving in a physical world.

Not to shift gears, but here's an interesting article. This is on Borneo, an island. Very finite size. How could a rhino go undetected for 20+ years on it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...d-asia-21963508

Right on both counts:

1. We may not know nothing about physics, but neither can we presume we know nearly enough to know what can be done to use it to get around.

2. The Bornean rhinoceros was a confirmed animal with a tiny range compared to sasquatch, and trails that are more like roads. And look how long it took. Science hasn't even begun to investigate sasquatch yet, and a lot more people are encountering sasquatch, I'd bet in a minute, than are encountering rhinos in Borneo.

Edited March 29, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I think the reason for that is, as true believers (I needn't mention this but I'm not one) say, is that they take up physical space and leave the most of their physical traces in place that human seldomly go and can be confused for bears.

It's been pretty conclusively shown that it's simply not a practical assumption that sasquatch can be confused with bears. Not just the very great physical differences, but simple human nature: when we see the unknown, we pigeonhole it into what we know. Even if we have to strain creduity to do it. (Read: it's very easy to rationalize a sasquatch you saw into a bear - as many, without doubt, have if it's real. One witness actually figured he'd seen a bear - with hands - and its muzzle shot off.)

Conclusively shown by whom?

[Guest DWA]

Read up. Again they come with the do my research for me thing.

[Guest]

It's been pretty conclusively shown that it's simply not a practical assumption that sasquatch can be confused with bears. Not just the very great physical differences, but simple human nature: when we see the unknown, we pigeonhole it into what we know. Even if we have to strain creduity to do it. (Read: it's very easy to rationalize a sasquatch you saw into a bear - as many, without doubt, have if it's real. One witness actually figured he'd seen a bear - with hands - and its muzzle shot off.)

I think I may have used the wrong simile, come to think of it.

Ever hear of the Mothman? Remember that turned out to be just a flurry of owl sightings? People rationalise seeing a Bigfoot as a bear because, as I hear it told, it's more common to see a bear than a Bigfoot. Sometimes a trick of the mind is really just a trick of the mind.

Actually, you just posted right there why I'm right. If it's so far beyond us as to appear magic, well, bingo.

No. I posted why you are wrong. Just because something might as well appear to be magic from our stand point (past or present) doesn't make it actual magic.

Science never uses an assumption unless it is a fact tested through the scientific method. The "assumptions" science uses are, in fact, facts.

That isn't how scientific theories work, though. I start with an assumption that a pound of feathers will fall at the same rate of speed as a pound of clay, and devise a test protocol under the assumption that if another assumed result happens instead, my assumption is wrong. This is falsibility.

"People routinely misidentify something as sasquatch" isn't a fact, and it hasn't been tested. Nor has the assertion that they are actually seeing sasquatch, while we're on that.

It's a safe assumption to make unless there is evidence to support their claim. Trust, but verify. Always.

[Guest DWA]

Ever hear of the Mothman? Remember that turned out to be just a flurry of owl sightings? People rationalise seeing a Bigfoot as a bear because, as I hear it told, it's more common to see a bear than a Bigfoot. Sometimes a trick of the mind is really just a trick of the mind.

Yes, but one doesn't assume that people just run around doing that. How many Mothman sightings were there? Compare to sasquatch. Right.

No. I posted why you are wrong. Just because something might as well appear to be magic from our stand point (past or present) doesn't make it actual magic.

I don't believe in magic. My point was that we can't presume alien abductions aren't happening. And we can't, and it's wrong to do so. Uninformed assumptions are deadly to science.

That isn't how scientific theories work, though. I start with an assumption that a pound of feathers will fall at the same rate of speed as a pound of clay, and devise a test protocol under the assumption that if another assumed result happens instead, my assumption is wrong. This is falsibility.

Yes it is how they work. One did not start with that assumption. In fact, one didn't assume. One tested it. One may have had a theorem; a theorem tested is not an assumption.

It's a safe assumption to make unless there is evidence to support their claim. Trust, but verify. Always.

No. ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT SAFE IN SCIENCE. Period. Why else would one test, and demand evidence? One does not believe bigfoot isn't real. One considers bigfoot an unresolved question. The difference is apples and Ganymede.