Should The Members Of The Bigfooting Community Investigate Suspected Hoaxes?

[Sasfooty]

I don't care. Not because the latest SC is on, but because it makes no difference in the greater scheme of things.

[Rockape]

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?

Yes

Sure, as long as the inconsistencies are stuff like:  the figure has human proportions and human movements; the backstory doesn't jibe with the video; those tracks look stamped, and given substrate we should see more than three; etc.

 

Or maybe that the video was released on April Fool's Day?

[Guest]

Sort of a moot point, if you want to try to debunk, then do, if you don't, then don't comment. Fact is, there is going to be lots more hoaxing because BF is now ''mainstream''.

 

It behooves the people with the motives to try to pick apart stories that don't add up. Its not a ''random'' concept here, there are signs to look for, there are patterns of behavior we can investigate that give off the ''false-flag'', IMO of course, but also these cross over into general socio-pathologic human nature, that is, the ''big lie''. A big lie is easier to tell than a little one. So the more over-dramatic the encounter, the more it should be looked at. And notice, Standing (video of mask) SC-(moonless night the day he e-mailed encounter to report it, Jennings left show, etc), and possible campsite deaths ( need way more information on this one, but, very dramatic, etc..)

 

Pretty simple basic human psychology.

I don't care. Not because the latest SC is on, but because it makes no difference in the greater scheme of things.

Not everyone has em in their backyard.

[MarkGlasgow]

I guess hoax investigation happens pretty organically. Only guys like Steve Kulls and Randy Filipovic dedicate time specifically to this cause.

Many a hoax (and in some cases misidentification) has been 'busted' here on BFF. Usually someone posts an interesting piece of footage and then the fun begins. The footage is scrutinized and analysed by the members here and any discrepancies are shared.

Thankfully folks who dig a little deeper into the incredible pics and footage taken by guys like Mark Anders and Todd Standing soon discover all is not what it seems.

I take your point Bobby that some people who have had an encounter may not care that much. However I would also think there are those who would like their experience to be vindicated by some proof or evidence. Unfortunately finding footage or pictures that stand up to scrutiny is proving to be quite a challenge.

[Guest]

The question for this topic is: 

Should The Members Of The Bigfooting Community Investigate Suspected Hoaxes?

 

I say, NO..............because as I mentioned before, often the authenticity of an encounter is merely a matter of opinion. I would rather spend

my time examining evidence I PERSONALLY find to be compelling and simply ignore the encounters/evidence I do not believe to be factual. It would not be beneficial for the community to investigate hoaxes in my humble opinion. When the finger pointing begins ( as if hasn't already lol ) i'm not sure it will ever end. Who will be elected or "selected" to judge whether or not someone is hoaxing and why should I value their opinion?  It's just all.complicated and a waste of time. I would much rather spend that time attempting to gather my own evidence. 

[Guest Divergent1]

If someone posts anything here I'm assuming they want everyone's opinion be it good or bad, otherwise, I don't see the point in sharing.

[Guest DWA]

I think that what a lot of us have the problem with is what WSA calls the "hoax vigilante" mentality.

 

Nothing, I guess, stopping anyone from doing that.  Just that some of us don't see the field advancing that way.  Granted, the resolution of the issue is gonna be in the field, and not here.

[Guest Divergent1]

In that case, I think if you have contacts in F&G or some other division like that, then it would make your claim look more legitimate if you asked them to look at your evidence. I can't see asking another footer to do it since that would create bias.

 

I think the reservation at Four Corners is actually doing that by having the police investigate their claims to give some validity to the paranormal reports out that way.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Divergent1

[Bonehead74]

The question for this topic is: 

Should The Members Of The Bigfooting Community Investigate Suspected Hoaxes?

That is actually the thread title (and probably not worded well, in hindsight).

The question I asked (and am seeking an answer for) is found in my original post:

 

 

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?

 

If the thread title is throwing people, I'll take the blame for that, but people should actually read the whole post before answering, IMO.

[Trogluddite]

While I voted yes, I believe that at least one premise is flawed, albeit not in the fashion mentioned by others.  I’ll try to explain. 

 

The “Bigfooting community†is not a monolithic collective guided by a single purpose or a uniform state of mind.  To summarize a concept mentioned in a few other threads, the “camps,†“tribes,†or factions within the community are, broadly speaking:

 

1) Those who “know†Bigfoot exists, whether through an encounter or a careful weighing of the evidence. 

 

2) Those who are undecided, or even quite skeptical, but who are committed to deciding the question in good faith based on the weight of the available evidence.  Note that this could include honest, but relatively incompetent, proponents and critics.

 

If that were the entirety of the “Bigfooting community,†the answer is a clear and unequivocal responsibility to address, publicly or privately, questionable claims and to identify the evidence that could lead to the conclusion that the claim is, intentionally or unintentionally, likely not an encounter with a Bigfoot. 

 

However, there are other factions warring for the very soul of the Bigfooting community. 

 

3) Those who want Bigfoot to exist so badly that they are willing to uncritically accept every claim of an encounter in the belief that the number of reports is more important than quality.

 

4) Those who don’t have an ounce of concern over whether Bigfoot exists or not, but who do want to make a fast buck and thus are willing to fan the flames of Bigfoot believe.

 

Because there are additional factions, it can never be a question of the “Bigfooting community†policing itself.  The factions that want a serious, disciplined inquiry into the question cannot reside in the same big tent with the faction that want to promote anything, even a blurry blobsquatch, that puts money in their pocket or the faction that believes without proof that every 2-acre patch of woods holds a family of horsehair braiding, tic-tac-toe playing, blueberry muffin eating family of sasquatches.  Simply ignoring the hoaxers, con artists, and those who are simply making thing up out of thin air will allow them to eventually take control of the agenda and relegate those who seek a serious inquiry to irrelevance – just ask the Mensheviks.

 

Those who are serious about addressing the question, regardless of the outcome, need to put up signs on the door reading “No Hoaxers or Con Artists Need Apply†and ruthlessly roust those individuals.  This does not mean running out inaccurate and incorrect, but sincere and made in good faith, reports; however, so long as questioning is done professionally, people who claim a sighting should not be all that put out over being asked to clarify points about it.  I’ve asked several pointed questions of people who made reports on here and never had anyone tell me that they had a problem with it. There are also numerous threads where witnesses have posted their reports and answered numerous questions about their claimed encounters – some have withstood the crucible of intense examination and others have folded like $5 lawn furniture.   

[norseman]

The one and only course worth pursuing is the one you are on.  Everything else is just perpetuating the failed state world of bigfoot.

Dunno, one good DNA sample or bone fossil could blow this thing wide open....... look at the hobbit.

thanks though, appreciate the "atta boy".

[Xion Comrade]

In short you better friggin believe it should police itself! The community has thrown many a good honest person and alot of incredible material under the bus, and put a ton of idiots and liars on stage, all because of it's utter lack of discipline. Seems to rely on worthless knee-jerk reactions tbh

[roguefooter]

Some people are just simply in denial. There are no "qualifications" of detecting a hoax in the Bigfoot world other than common sense.

 

As far as "stifling the sharing of information" goes, outing hoaxers hasn't caused any loss in the field for the past 50+ years- the field has only grown. It's flawed logic that holds no merit, just typical scare tactics. It reminds me of being back in grade school when you had those kids who would say "You better be really nice to me or I won't share". Sorry but I'm not here to appease anybody. The only people responsible for holding back information or evidence are the ones holding it back- quit trying to put the blame on somebody else's shoulders. This isn't grade school.

 

Outing hoaxers is about keeping the field reputable. So it boils down to whether you care about the field or just your own personal needs. I think some people are here more to have friends than for the actual subject matter. They'll lie about Bigfoot to make friends, and defend a lie to maintain friends.

[Celtic Raider]

The question for this topic is: 

Should The Members Of The Bigfooting Community Investigate Suspected Hoaxes?

 

I say, NO..............because as I mentioned before, often the authenticity of an encounter is merely a matter of opinion. I would rather spend

my time examining evidence I PERSONALLY find to be compelling and simply ignore the encounters/evidence I do not believe to be factual. It would not be beneficial for the community to investigate hoaxes in my humble opinion. When the finger pointing begins ( as if hasn't already lol ) i'm not sure it will ever end. Who will be elected or "selected" to judge whether or not someone is hoaxing and why should I value their opinion?  It's just all.complicated and a waste of time. I would much rather spend that time attempting to gather my own evidence. 

 

I don't think the point is to be judge, jury and executioner nor appoint anyone to be such.............but maybe just present evidence that points out obvious flaws or clear attempts to contort or misrepresent the truth.

 

I think this mostly applies to video footage or photographs, for example if I were to log an encounter and post a video of a shady 'creature' next to a tree in some forest park. My account could be that the creature was 10 foot tall and the footage showed the creature next to a tree it was half as high as, you may well be aware of where that footage was filmed, maybe it's very near and you know the area well and could check the height of the relative tree and measure it at just 12 foot, making the 'creature' around 6 foot. You now have a decision whether to keep quiet or provide evidence that the 'creature' is not all it is made out to be.

 

You probably don't know me personally, so wouldn't be able to ascertain whether I was generally truthful or not but I think it's intellectually honest to make people aware that either I was vastly overestimating the size of the subject and thus an unreliable witness at best or deliberately trying to misrepresnt what I saw. You wouldn't have to make a pronouncement that I am a bona fide hoaxer, just make the evidence available for people to make their own minds up. It was what happend effectively with the Todd Standing case, people looked into the claims and provided evidence which soon stacked up. Individuals can look into that and make their own mind up. It makes the field more self aware and creates a better perception of integrity which can surely help a great deal.

Celtic Raider earns a plus.

People are going way out into left field with this. My question was about whether we should say something when we see inconsistencies in a claim and seek clarification or just let it go?

 

Thanks Bonehead!

 

Great avatar by the way.........my favourite film

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I'm not voting because I'm not actually a believer, nor am I a debunker and because there is one huge flaw with this idea.

 

 When I read these forums and others, there's no agreement  on the aggressiveness of the creature. There's no agreement if the creature is nocturnal or diurnal. And so forth.

 

Without a universally accepted standard on Big Foot (behavior/physical appearance/family structure/etc.), there is no effective way to weed out hoaxes because it will be too subjective.  The people who believe the creature is nocturnal will be more apt to view a daytime sighting as a hoax than the diurnal supporters. Vice versa.  The Non-aggressive BIg Foot advocates will be more apt to view an aggressive Big Foot encounter as a hoax. Vice versa. People who believe Big Feet live in family units will be more apt to view a description of a hermit Big Foot as a hoax. Vice versa.

 

The scientific community has committees and organizations charged with reviewing studies, analyzing data,  setting  standards,  and creating policies. Until the Big Foot community does that, forget about a hoax busters association ever existing or operating with any type of legitimacy.

Edited April 16, 2015 by ChasingRabbits