Should The Members Of The Bigfooting Community Investigate Suspected Hoaxes?

[Bonehead74]

Do we, as a community, have a right and/or responsibility to seek clarification of questionable claims when we become aware of them, and in turn, should we give voice to our concern that a potential untruth is being presented?

[MarkGlasgow]

Without doubt.

Drew made a comment recently about the level of challenge on here being much less than he'd ever known it.

I'm in full agreement.

[Guest Crowlogic]

The bigfoot community are the creators of the hoaxes.  It isn't the Lake Monster community or the UFO community making bigfoot hoaxes.  The last biggie was Todd Standing and was he not a member of the bigfoot community?  You can't create a bigfoot hoax without knowing about bigfoot and you can't know about bigfoot without being part of the bigfoot community.  The bigfoot community investigating itself is like wall Street creating it's own regulations.  Neither can end well.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Bonehead74]

So is that a yes or a no?

Using that (Crow)logic, you yourself have no standing to criticize the community, yet here you are.

So what regulating authority should we submit to, Crow, if any? Or should we just let the hoaxes slide?

Edited April 14, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Doc Holliday]

the flip side is we can't exactly call the Loch Ness community or UFO forums to police it for us . the bad BF apples don't represent the whole basket, although they do ruin it for the rest at times.

imo, no one better to root them out than the folks that know what to look for since no one else would take it that seriously....thanks to the bad apples....round and round it goes, in circles kinda like this

https://youtu.be/ghj5V5cUo1s

[southernyahoo]

Unfortunately, I doubt most members of this community can really investigate to the level necessary to prove a hoax. Some folks are fanatical hoax busters, and seem more into that than actually finding bigfoot or proof of. It's a full time job just doing one or the other. Ultimately proving a hoax is just a matter of what seems obvious to the observer of all the facts, and a lot of times, there just isn't enough of those and a flurry of raging opinions that don't amount to a fact.

 

To each his own here and what they want to expend their time and energy on.

[WSA]

If my reading comprehension is up to snuff, there are those here who are invested in the notion that ALL BF evidence is hoaxed, so, umm, they just post that and we're done?  So, yeah...debunk away if it cranks you. 

[Bonehead74]

Implied in the original question, WSA, was the presupposition that at least some evidence is not hoaxed, hence my use of the terms "suspected hoaxes", "questionable claims", and "potential untruth".

For the sake of discussion, let's just disregard those outliers who believe that either all or no evidence of bigfoot is hoaxed, m'kay? What say you then?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest DWA]

The only reason I voted "yes" is that I don't think hoaxes should be willfully ignored and I don't care about Bigfoot TV.

 

I don't think fakes are a significant issue in this field for serious people.  I just don't.  I simply move the fakes aside and scrutinize the evidence.  It's actually pretty easy.

[Bonehead74]

Unfortunately, I doubt most members of this community can really investigate to the level necessary to prove a hoax. Some folks are fanatical hoax busters, and seem more into that than actually finding bigfoot or proof of. It's a full time job just doing one or the other. Ultimately proving a hoax is just a matter of what seems obvious to the observer of all the facts, and a lot of times, there just isn't enough of those and a flurry of raging opinions that don't amount to a fact. To each his own here and what they want to expend their time and energy on.

I tend to agree with you, SY, but you're answering a different question than the one I asked. I didn't question whether we are able to expose or prove a hoax, but rather, should we point out questionable claims or evidence contrary to those claims, and then seek out why the conflicts exist?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Branco]

If my reading comprehension is up to snuff, there are those here who are invested in the notion that ALL BF evidence is hoaxed, so, umm, they just post that and we're done?  So, yeah...debunk away if it cranks you. 

 Your reading comprehension is fine! :-)

[Guest DWA]

Another thing to be pointed out here.

 

One of our most valued commentators, bipto, left here because of a lot of brainless scofflitizing about Area X.  Such intellectually challenged twaddle has no place on the BFF.

[Bonehead74]

[Guest DWA]

Well, actually, no it isn't.  It's a fact:

 

When you "debunk" something, you have done nothing unless *you prove* you're right.

Oh right.  You've played to the grandstand and let a lot of ignant people think they're as smart as you.  Which...um....yeah, they are, aren't they.

[Bonehead74]