Why Exactly Do Hoaxers Hoax In The First Place?

[ThePhaige]

^^^ I appreciate your answers here and I sense you're being honest. Its totally fine to be a skeptic, I have no issues with that at all personally. I too was a skeptic at one time and was wanting to find the truth about all of this. It was not until I had my own sighting and ensuing encounters that I came over that line.

You will find every level of experience here, from none at all to everything and the kitchen sink. I live by the adage ...a closed mouth gathers no foot (no pun) and I would hate to toss around terms like crazy or similar terms since you may at some point find yourself in the same situation one day is all Im saying. Dealing in absolutes is a sure fire way to get into a calamity of trouble down the line. Thanks again for taking these questions on honestly. +1

Edited March 31, 2013 by ThePhaige

[MarkGlasgow]

@LeftFoot I have all the perspective I require thank you very much and as for 'sounding crazy', well you may come across quite a bit of it round these parts. Enjoy.

@Ronn Hope all is good Ronn. Good to see your still with us.

[Guest]

Thanks Mark..still here and *THERE* as well.

[Guest DWA]

ronn1 is probably referring to a certain hoax/story underway right now. It's a good place to go if you want the thread locked.

But why would 'they' do that for? I can't think of anyone who would be negatively impacted if Bigfoot was to be sudenly be confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt, plenty of people who would benefit from that revalation, and no practical way of keeping that from happening.

It's as ridiculous a notion as the one where 'Big Auto' goes around harassing 'Shade Tree Mechanic' for inventing an engine that runs on water that 'Big Auto' couldn't develop despite having teams of engineers and a few generations to work on such a thing, oh it appears that he has a huge familly as well as everyone who tells this story he is "My uncle in the country side"... See where I'm going with this?

Bigfoot confirmed will hurt a lot of people who took positions without properly assessing the evidence. "Scientists" who were wrong and staked their reputations on it, newspeople that laughed about it and anyone else who said they thought it was a joke. Supposedly, 70% of people do not believe it is real. Humans in general, have a lot of vanity, insecurity and arrogance. Being wrong is socially discouraged... to the extent that even skeptically investigating bigfoots is deemed kooky. Social pressure put us here.

I suppose there are also others who see financial difficulty if more greenbelts are designated where they want to log or develop land. I have read that logging companies know the truth and hide it. If there is a sighting they may do a weak hoax to discredit the real event. I've joked a few times that for every real ufo sighting, the CIA does nine hoaxes. Then they can say "90% chance it's a hoax" and leaving the remaining 10% to be kooks and misidentifications, lies or anything else that probably isn't the real thing.

As far as the government goes... they have a reputation for protecting us and knowing enough about the world to be able to do that. They haven't told us much about bigfoots (or ufos), so the assumption is that they don't exist, or else we would have been told about them. The notions that our government doesn't know, or has lied about it and withheld the information, undermines their credibility in a big way. The "status quo", is important enough for some people to protect it at all costs. The uncertainty of what would happen if that is disrupted is just not worth the risk. Mitt Romney joked about bigfoot being a hoax... He'll look even dumber if it isn't. If bigfoots are real, th en what other conspiracies might be true?... ufo's, 9/11, WMD's... North Korea? Iran? My congressman, the Senate. Why should I trust anybody? or pay my taxes? A major credibility crisis... hypothetically. This is why no one with a real body could even talk about it and ever expect to show it in public. It simply can't be allowed to happen.

To believe that parties (the government, particularly land management agencies; resource-extraction interests, etc.) have knowledge they are not making public doesn't require a conspiracy-theorist mindset. It simpy requires the knowledge that people with a lot of headaches as part of their daily work try to minimize the headaches.

[Guest Steve Byrne]

To believe that parties (the government, particularly land management agencies; resource-extraction interests, etc.) have knowledge they are not making public doesn't require a conspiracy-theorist mindset. It simpy requires the knowledge that people with a lot of headaches as part of their daily work try to minimize the headaches.

I agree completely. The decision of a low level worker to not report something or a supervisor to not pass it up the chain, is more analogous to a witness not making a report, than any kind of conspiracy.

At the higher levels, and in a "who would be hurt." context, there may be more going on. If bigfoots exist, then I have a hard time imagining that more evidence or bodies have not been collected and studied. I number of "stories", state this implicitly. Until a type specimen reveal, a well executed DNA study or even a Ketchum raw data upload happens, we can only speculate.

[Guest]

To believe that parties (the government, particularly land management agencies; resource-extraction interests, etc.) have knowledge they are not making public doesn't require a conspiracy-theorist mindset. It simpy requires the knowledge that people with a lot of headaches as part of their daily work try to minimize the headaches.

I agree completely. The decision of a low level worker to not report something or a supervisor to not pass it up the chain, is more analogous to a witness not making a report, than any kind of conspiracy.

At the higher levels, and in a "who would be hurt." context, there may be more going on. If bigfoots exist, then I have a hard time imagining that more evidence or bodies have not been collected and studied. I number of "stories", state this implicitly. Until a type specimen reveal, a well executed DNA study or even a Ketchum raw data upload happens, we can only speculate.

Maybe... Has anyone considered that if there was a coverup that it might be done out of ignorance or disbelief rather than it being a function of some ridiculous 'grand conspiracy'?

Edited April 1, 2013 by Leftfoot

[Cotter]

^ I dunno, when you come face to face with a guy dressed in a black suit in the middle of the PNW, after you've spent several weeks trying to convince the BLM there is 'something' out there, you begin to believe there may be some merit to an 'official' coverup.

[Guest]

Doubtful. I mean would spotting people dressed in black be considered 'suspicious' any other time?

And think of it, if you were attempting a coverup would you send a suspicious looking person dressed in black or would you send a normal looking person dressed in normal looking clothes?

Now I understand you might be frustrated that the officials won't take the Bigfoot community seriously but grand conspiracies and massive coverups can be readily dismissed using a little common sense and critical thinking.

[Cotter]

Sure, but you wouldn't find it odd that someone was nosing around the perimeter of your camp dressed in a suit? In the PNW, on a side of a mountain?

[MarkGlasgow]

Now I understand you might be frustrated that the officials won't take the Bigfoot community seriously but grand conspiracies and massive coverups can be readily dismissed using a little common sense and critical thinking.

Does the conspiracy have to be on grand scale? Does the cover up have to be massive?

[Cotter]

It doesn't Mark, but with the potential of shutting down vast tracts of land that are currently being used, or slated for minerals, ores, oils, gasses, and lumber....I don't find it hard to believe the cover up could be on a significant level.

On the flip side, knowing how folks that have seen one of these are treated publicly, I can see how individual cover ups on a smaller scale can happen, and keep the necessity of a 'grand' cover up minimal.

[Guest]

Probably just for laughs. I can see why it'd be funny, I guess.

[Guest mittenfoot]

Money, plain and simple.

Either trying to make some or trying to protect resources for corporate profit.

You can make some pretty good coin with a viral video on YouTube.

I seem to recall a picture a couple weeks ago of some dude waving a stack of hundred dollar bills around.

[Guest]

Five pages of "why do hoaxers hoax"?

Money, attention, fooling the gullible, getting away with something silly, pushing their luck, mental illness and imbalances. Or could be that they are just jerks.

And to edit this, after thinking of one specific hoaxer - seeking to be important again - after seeing the real thing, wanting that respect and "ooh, aahh" awe reaction from the bigfooting community.

Edited April 2, 2013 by madison5716

[Northern Lights]

I've posted this before, but since it is coming up again, I will throw it out. I wrote this up last year to profile hoaxers to see if they could be categorized.

Here goes:

Baseline-

With the advent of social media and portals such as Youtube, hoaxers have access to a virtual unlimited audience. This access provides added incentive to continue the hoax and increase the recognition. Recognition is the key element to a hoax and is the driving component which ties them all together.

I. Classification of hoaxers-

Professional: This level of hoaxer is motivated by the possibility of obtaining a profit from the hoax. The professional tends to have a high level of understanding of the subject matter and will go to extensive lengths to produce a believable and convincing incident. The incident will receive a very high level of scrutiny and will need to be able to withstand a critical analysis by others with knowledge of the subject. Since the motivation is profit and the professional knows the hoax will eventually be discovered as a ruse, obtaining the profit quickly will be a key. The hoaxer will seek a source willing to pay for exclusive access to the incident, probably with a local or national news organization. The professional will hold themselves out as an expert on the subject and profess to have an extensive background, which will add credibility to the incident. Credibility is a key to being able to sell the incident to an unsuspecting audience.

Serial: The serial hoaxer is motivated more by obtaining attention than by the possibility of obtaining a profit. The attention garnered can be either positive or negative. This person will attempt to hide behind a false identity and use many aliases since quantity is more important to ensure the lineage can be continued. Timing of the release of the incident to the public will be quick. The method of exposure will be to the widest possible audience.

Silly: This level has no regard for sophistication and is only motivated by getting a laugh. The hoax is usually obvious and ultimately harmless to the cause. The hoaxer doesn’t try and hide behind an alias and will publish multiple incidents. The release will be sporadic and usually on a medium that is easiest to access.

Warhol: This level of hoaxer is only seeking recognition and the attention that comes with it. They are looking for their 15 minutes of fame and are not seeking to profit and have no intention of doing it in the future.

Nefarious: The level of hoaxer has a grudge with a person or the subject and intends harm to the overall reputation by perpetrating a sophisticated hoax that will eventually be revealed. The hoax will be in line with the professional hoaxer by obtaining acceptance by the community and then coming clean with the intent to discredit the entire group. The release will be to a very narrow audience where immediate acceptance can be obtained allowing for a high degree of credibility.

II. Types of Incidents-

· Video

· Still Pictures:

· Prints or impressions (Foot, Hand, Body)

· Stick Structures

· Audio

· Eyewitness Testimony

· Biological Evidence (Hair, Saliva, Scat, Skin)

III. Type of Hoax-

Direct: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and releasing it for consumption.

Indirect: This approach has the hoaxer fabricating the incident and having a third party view it and ultimately report it. This method is reliant upon the third party to act upon what was witnessed and removes the hoaxer from the incident and all trails leading to them.

IV. Target Audience-

General populace: This approach allows for the greatest coverage only requiring a single individual to witness the hoax and release it for consumption.

Specific Individual: This method will focus the incident at locations the hoaxer knows an individual will frequent. Since recognition is needed by the individual, the hoaxer will have knowledge of the individual’s schedule along with the location.

V. Analysis-

In the event of an incident, analysis needs to be done based upon varying factors to determine whether a hoax exists or if the evidence is plausible for an actual event.