Should The Members Of The Bigfooting Community Investigate Suspected Hoaxes?

[Guest DWA]

 

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.   

Good post; go back and read it.  But this particularly:  yep.  

 

Many of the 'best' reports I have read are that way because of the follow-up.  Most people aren't Shakespeare.  Most don't think they'll be taken seriously so post the minimum on the site.  Good follow-up can turn a blase report into a truly compelling encounter; the right questions are all that's needed, the witness has all the answers.  OK, most.

 

It may be that proper follow-up is essential to the picture the encounter reports have so clearly painted to those of us who have made a study of them.  But the kind of aimless uninformed grilling I see on too many threads here is not the way.  Too many people with too little information about too much appoint themselves Seekers of Truth Emeritus in this field.  They should try it in astronomy or chemistry to see how it flies in science.

[WSA]

Agreed. Asking clarifications or for supplemental information is hardly ever a problem for anyone. But c'mon, if your raison to hang out on this board is to shoot down ALL evidence (and yeah, you know who you are, as do most of us here. I'm talking to you) you're not accomplishing anything worthwhile, and hindering quite a lot.  If you want to give license to those who find this the best use of their time, don't be surprised at the result. 

[Guest DWA]

I'd stop, personally, being so hind-pained about people who have seen a sasquatch that I spend my whole life - or, wow, a significant and majorly wasted part of it - trying to deny reality.  I'd get out and try to see one myself, were I one of you, or acquaint myself with the evidence out of, you know, simple curiosity.

 

Anyone who thinks that active denial of stuff right in front of one's face to peruse and learn is worthwhile, or fun:  setting up your very own website would be super cool.  More fun than hanging out here trying to pretend the world isn't happening, I'd wager.

Edited April 16, 2015 by DWA

[Trogluddite]

..... 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......

 

That misunderstands the issue, although I'll add that it is fair to say that few reported encounters will be resolved conclusively on a message board.

 

You're right to say that a report of a Bigfoot approaching a house in daylight can't be ruled out because we conclusively know that a) Bigfoots are purely nocturnal or Bigfeet stay at least 5 miles away from human population.  

 

However, reports can be called into question and perhaps even conclusively determined to be an intentional lie or a sincere, but inaccurate, report. That's done through identifying inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony and documentary (if any) evidence, or by identifying inconsistencies in various versions of their testimony.  If you go back in the various threads (some only available in the premium section), its clear that multiple claims that seemed too good to be true have been outed as not true.  

 

Its fair to assume that a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny from people who likely would love for a claim to be true is going to be tossed around like a rag doll among those who are hostile to the idea of Bigfoot or who are willing to have a good belly laugh at what the "Bigfoot yokels" are doing now.   

[gigantor]

Maybe we can create a panel of volunteers that looks at the reports and issues an opinion. Like the politifact setup for politicians. Not official, but a general consensus of sorts after researching the available facts. One of the results could be inconclusive if there is no clear conclusion... 

 

The members of the panel could be elected, etc.

Edited April 17, 2015 by gigantor

[MagniAesir]

I didn't vote and the reason why is quite ordinary

I really don't care if the "bigfoot community" endorses or rejects a report

I think that a "bigfoot community" really does not exist except in the broadest sense

I think that most people are promoting their own agendas and very few are as objective as they claim

At the end of the day when I read an account, if it doesn't pass my bs filters I ignore it

If the account passes my filter then I will investigate it further

While I do appreciate the time and effort that some people put into sharing the results of their investigations, there are some who I put more weight on then others

For me a classic example is a researcher that did an analysis that proved a figure was a real sasquatch, when it was already a know hoax.

This analysis showed how he was more of a proponent then an investigator

I have no problems exposing hoaxers, and will continue doing what I am doing, and I think most people are the same

[Guest]

The question almost seems to be moot at this point. There is ample evidence here in this forum alone that there is a cadre fo folks who spend a great deal of time doing nothing but "investigating" suspected hoaxes.

In this time of rapidly evolving technology and the general demise of what used to be called character and integrity, which both have contributed to the rise of the semi-pro hoaxer, I don't think we are going to see a unified front in the field of BF where even if a group did get together and establish the highest of standards they'd be taken seriously by the general public.

Too much counterweight being applied by TV bigfoot and youtube bigfoot, etc. ad nauseum.

When a case comes to my attention I look at it, evaluate the totality of the circumstances as best I can, and either flush it on the spot or file it under the "I dunno" heading, or put it in the I want to know more and I want it now dept.

Once I've done that I try to move on.

Time is a precious commodity in my world, giving any of it over to futzing around with hoaxers is counterproductive and wasteful. If I was a conspiracy theorist I would really be considering the possibility that the bonanza of hoaxers that has been brought forth in the past 15 years or so is a cleverly disguised plot to obfuscate and camouflage the whole deal so that separating the wheat from the chaff becomes increasingly difficult....

But that couldn't be....right?

[Bonehead74]

However, reports can be called into question and perhaps even conclusively determined to be an intentional lie or a sincere, but inaccurate, report. That's done through identifying inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony and documentary (if any) evidence, or by identifying inconsistencies in various versions of their testimony.  If you go back in the various threads (some only available in the premium section), its clear that multiple claims that seemed too good to be true have been outed as not true.  

 

 

+1

 

This was my whole point, although it was, perhaps, poorly articulated originally (Note to self: Don't compose an online poll while spaced out on Vicodin ). When these inconsistencies jump out at us, should we point them out and seek clarification, or should we pretend like we didn't notice them for fear of offending someone's delicate sensibilities?

[chelefoot]

I think that inconsistencies should be questioned. But I think there's a right way and a wrong way to do that.  Say for example, we have a well known member tell an encounter story. As time goes on, the story changes. Others notice the change.  What should happen?

 

Yes, I think questions should be asked. It could just be a misunderstanding. It could be something else. But to go after that member as if they are flat out lying or hoaxing is not the right way to deal with this type of situation, IMO.

 

I'm not talking about obvious hoaxes and hoaxers, who knowingly put out fakes... trying to fool people. I'm talking about people who share personal encounters.

 

I think that there's an odd thing that happens with people who have a sighting (some, not all).  They suddenly remember things that they hadn't mentioned.  The story starts to evolve....    details change.  I don't think we should jump to the conclusion that it's because they are lying/hoaxing.   I think other things are at hand.  The power of suggestion for one. 

 

We had a member who had a sighting. He/She told her story, then someone said, "Sounds like you saw a Dogman".  From then on, the story was that he/she saw a dogman. 

 

I don't think he/she was intentionally lying before of after the story changed. I think he/she was just trying to make sense of what he/she saw, and since he/she didn't KNOW what he/she saw, it makes for a story that morphs the more times it is told. Does that make him/her a liar or hoaxer? I don't think so. I think a hoaxer is someone who sets out from the start to pass off a fake as the real deal.  

 

These others who stories change, I think they are just trying to make sense of what they saw and I don't think they are intentionally being deceptive. 

 

I see it all the time on Facebook.  People want so badly to be in the knower group, they might see a shadow in the woods, and come back and relate how fully convinced they are that they saw a BF - because they wanted to so badly that they were easily talked into (by themselves) believing that is what they saw.   Then as people ask them questions,  "What color was it, was it alone" they fill in the blanks...  Well, it was black (shadow) and I heard something in another bush, so I bet it was another one". 

 

So the story has changed to "I think I saw a BF"  to  "I had a sighting of 2 black Bigfoots"

 

Does that make sense?  I think a LOT of stories evolve from unusual events to full blown encounters.... when the witness still fully believes what they are sharing.  But, even though they aren't sharing just the facts of what happened, and are adding misconceptions, and add on memories, they aren't knowingly lying.

 

So should you out this people when you find an inconsistency in their story? Well, you could I guess. But in my opinion, if it is a member here - especially a well known and respected member, I think I would PM them and point out the inconsistencies and ask them what they think could have happened along the way to have caused the story to change. They may have an explanation that makes perfect sense. They may not.  If not, then I guess it would be up to you as to whether you want to point it out to the rest of the membership. But at least you are giving that person time to think about it, perhaps realize that they have made a mistake along the way ... and then they can start thinking about what actually happened again and sort it out.

 

I have no sympathy for hoaxers. I think they should be outed.  But I think there's a difference.  Not all of these people who are telling of encounters whose stories change are out right lying, IMO. And I certainly don't consider those people hoaxers, YMMV

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

However, reports can be called into question and perhaps even conclusively determined to be an intentional lie or a sincere, but inaccurate, report. That's done through identifying inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony and documentary (if any) evidence, or by identifying inconsistencies in various versions of their testimony.  If you go back in the various threads (some only available in the premium section), its clear that multiple claims that seemed too good to be true have been outed as not true. 

 

That would depend on the interview technique. A “leading†interview has the potential to result in a much different testimony than an “open ended†interview. Furthermore, if a person says in the initial interview that the assailant was wearing a white T-shirt, but in a subsequent interview remembers a coffee stain on that T-shirt, how does one determine if that “inconsistency†is a genuine recollection or an embellishment? What are the criteria for that determination?

 

That's why without standardization, without criteria and policies, legitimate hoax busting won't happen any time soon, imo.

[norseman]

I think a much better use of our time is proving it's existence than verifying reports or videos that do nothing to advance our cause.

If there was a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the veracity of a report? The species would already be proven to exist!!!!

We are adrift in open water for the simple reason that it is impossible!

[1980squatch]

Plussed Chele.  I don't worry about personal encounter stories, I believe some (many) and some I don't.  And yes, those that evolve can be irritating but there may be truth at the source.  Attack mode is best left for those who present false evidence for personal gain of some kind (fame, notoriety, money, ego, influence...).

 

All that is separate from the issue of presenting evidence here and then getting a flood of opinions on it, a mix of purely armchair to very well researched.  That is a core function of this forum and will not go away.  The evidence will go into the maybe pile or the most likely not pile, and hoaxing never needs to come up.

[Guest]

This topic came up because a top BF show hosts sighting, which was extreme, has been called out, and 2 of the other hosts quit the show over this.

 

The main hoaxing red-flags to look for, are over-exaggeration, over-dramatic, over the top parts of the story. If we list known or pretty-sure we know, hoaxes, we can see a well-cut pattern of over-dramatic story telling most likely. There may be more subtle hoaxers out there, but I would bet modi-operandi is going to fall within certain elements of "lookey-me".

 

This is going to happen anyway, because of the topic.

 

Although that information will vary from person to person.

 

I think a much better use of our time is proving it's existence than verifying reports or videos that do nothing to advance our cause.

 

Not a communal opinion there. Because we are not in a commune here!

[Guest]

Chele brings another good point to the table.

 

I have said before that interviewing and interrogation is dang near an art form. The very best practitioners are artists in my opinion. When I was in the business if working a serious case I wouldn't consider the work done with a witness/victim statement until we had gone through the entire event at least 3 times, preferably over a couple of days...in a one-on-one setting, where we are able to evaluate body language and non-verbal cues as the person tells us their story. Since the birth of the VCR we have recorded all major case interviews, the value in that tool should be obvious...

Simply reading a transcribed document doesn't give you access to the non-verbal stuff.

People telling the truth do remember details out of order sometimes, and I've had victims/witnesses call me a week after we've done our final interview and tell me they woke up in the night and remembered something else.

It happens. No subterfuge intended.

An interviewer with the training and experience is going to know when he is being misled, and when he is getting the truth.

A skilled interviewer can no doubt lead a witness, but it is very apparent when that has been done if you have a complete transcript of the interview to reference.

[Trogluddite]

I think a much better use of our time is proving it's existence than verifying reports or videos that do nothing to advance our cause.

If there was a way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the veracity of a report? The species would already be proven to exist!!!!

We are adrift in open water for the simple reason that it is impossible!

I don't disagree with this.  However, allowing egregious hoaxes to stand opens the door to allowing Chewbaca masks and breathing rugs as being the public face of the Bigfoot community.  Attempting to provide a slab-monkey and dropping 500 lb JDAMS on obvious hoaxes and charlatans can proceed apace.