Should The Members Of The Bigfooting Community Investigate Suspected Hoaxes?

[Guest]

Trog I agree. The most egregious stuff needs to be quickly shot down and then left in the dust, but once we've done the fire mission and confirmed it via the BDA then enough is enough. Paying too much attention to them gives them what they seem to crave, who was it that said "any publicity is good publicity"?

We are going to be stuck with a small group of serial hoaxers until the hoaxers no longer feed their needs from hoaxing.

[Guest thermalman]

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.

Is why I voted NO.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

You don't have to prove that something is a hoax as that would be time consuming and unnecessary. Most hoaxes usually have some pretty obvious flaws that give them away. Pointing out what the main issues are with a hoax is all that's needed. A few people may continue to believe it, but that isn't much of a concern. 

[Trogluddite]

southernyahoo, on 14 Apr 2015 - 7:38 PM, said:

Unfortunately, I doubt most members of this community can really investigate to the level necessary to prove a hoax.....

 

It seems like Todd Standing, the Squatchmaster, the Toe-cutter, and others have been thoroughly vetted on this forum and sufficient evidence has been mustered to show that they are, more likely than not, hoaxers.

 

That being said, I agree that the priority of effort should be on producing unequivocal proof of existence or likely non-existence (since you can't prove a negative).  

 

Pulling the mask away from the hoaxers and snake-oil salesmen is a secondary, effort, but an important secondary effort.  While some information may dry up if claims are vetted thoroughly, more will dry up if the bigfooting community is perceived as a clown show or collection of grifters.  In addition, sincere voices and efforts may be drowned out by the carnie barkers.     

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I definitely believe that it is a necessity. On the contrary however, it is up to each individual to choose their battles considering that there will be very few people willing to not only take the time necessary to investigate claims, but who are comfortable with calling out a hoaxer. Thus there will be a small number of individuals performing due diligence, placing a great workload on them. It is much more difficult when there is no real proof of a hoax as well. We can easily divide hoaxes into two categories, those perpetrated by members of the community and those perpetrated by outsiders. I would think that the majority of hoaxes are done by outsiders, as evidenced by the numerous unconvincing hoaxes on the internet. Those are often easier to spot for what they are, and because of this I think it is easy to forget just how many are out there. I'm referring to those obvious monkey suits that wouldn't fool an 8 year old. Now those in the community who perpetrate hoaxes are much more likely to do so in a convincing manner, for two main reasons: first, they have more knowledge where bigfoot is concerned, and second, they expend more effort since they know they are likely to have their claims scoured for evidence of dishonesty, and they must learn the beliefs of those "in the know," which requires more effort than simply donning a monkey suit and walking through the woods.

 

The community hoaxer is much more dangerous to the subject in my opinion, because there is usually much more hype generated around their hoax considering it cannot easily be proven to be false. So a good video can float around for a very long time with no one being able to definitively prove it is a hoax, which feeds the hype as more people see it. Another way to put it is that there are more of the "joking" type of hoaxes outside the community, while within the community there are more "professional" types of hoaxes. The latter types are actually created with the intent of defrauding people for some type of gain, while the other types are more of people just messing around. The more professional hoaxers are also much more likely to let their hoaxes go on forever, without ever admitting they are fake, unless they are forced to through proof. Even then they will probably never admit it. Standing comes to mind.

 

You commented that you were referring more to pointing out questionable claims as opposed to only doing so when able to prove a hoax, and I would have to answer that I believe we should not leave questionable things hanging without analyzing them. So instead of a person, group, or the entire community needing proof and outing a potential hoaxer, they can simply question things that do not make sense, and bring to light any evidence contrary to an individual's claims. The next step, as you pointed out, would be to attempt to find the source of any conflict. The conflict could have originated due to a person's claims being false, but other potential explanations include a failure on the part of the claimant to include all of the pertinent information, an inability to communicate effectively in writing online, a lapse in memory, etc. I only mention this because when adopting a logical course of action it cannot be assumed that unanswered questions or conflicting information is an indication of deceit. Despite this process being a good course for analyzing the legitimacy of claims, I think we cannot ignore completely the fact that in most instances we will never reach a satisfactory conclusion based upon evidence. As I've said numerous times in relation to various aspects of this subject, it all comes down to possibility and then probability. First determine possibility, and if something is possible then one moves on to determining probability.  It is true however that multiple conflicts in an individual's claims, coupled with whatever else may be present that seems to make little sense, is reason enough to dismiss that person's claims. Or at least to categorize them as inconclusive. I think that pursuing this course of action, a process centered around addressing those aspects of a case that have not been satisfactorily answered, will in most instances leave us in a position whereby we must classify the case as inconclusive. Think about it this way: we cannot prove definitively that a claim is 100% accurate or that a video depicts a bigfoot, nor can we conclusively prove the contrary. Yet I would definitely still sanction a process of questioning everything, despite any potential limitations. I mean what other options do we really have? We cannot just ignore inconsistencies, but instead must seek out there source, as you astutely pointed out in this thread. I think some of our members do this naturally. I suppose I have done so in the past, but nothing too in-depth - mainly just things that strike me as odd here and there. But if everyone would do that, sure they will be wrong sometimes considering that they may have overlooked an easy explanation, but the community can set them straight in a tactful manner...but sometimes they may be on to something, whereby others can help pursue that particular angle, possibly resulting in actually proving a hoax (despite the difficulty), or at least informing the community that certain claims are so dubious that they should be ignored.

[norseman]

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.

We have NO face!!!!!!!

99 percent of humanity sees the whole kit and kaboodle as a chewbacca mask...,,,,, where is the zipper!? Todd Standing is a hoaxer? Prove it! Ignoring the fact of course that everyone thinks the whole subject is a sham! Its folly........

Concentrate efforts that make a difference! I'm not saying one can not have an opinion or express it. But teams with recorders and yard sticks going to interview the Standings of the world???? Ummmmm no!

Edited April 18, 2015 by norseman

[roguefooter]

 

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

 

I agree with giving them a chance to explain themselves, I'll even give them a chance if they insult me. If they keep returning with insults and no explanations then I have no problem with making a determination based on their actions. Their actions are just as important in determining dishonesty as the evidence.

 

As far as a PM goes, I would go that route depending on the circumstances. If they make it a public spectacle then I don't see public questioning as being an issue.

Edited April 18, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest]

 In the relatively short time I have been a member here, the thing that stands out or at least the threads that I have read have been of those where the members of this forum debunked hoaxes, mostly by the believers or proponents. The Elbe trackway hoax, the various Rick Dyers scams, the Todd Standing muppet and makeup jobs, and numerous youtube flavor of the week videos and photographs. If I remember correctly   the investigative effort was made as much by proponents as skeptics. Just  from  following the threads that is what I remember. Virtually every bit of purported evidence publically aired has been thoroughly analyzed by both sides I would say, whether to the satisfaction to everyone or not. But still pored over, poked, prodded, and critiqed very strenuously. By Skeptic and proponent alike. My own takeaway is both sides agree more often than not on hoaxes. One would expect maybe that the skeptical side might consider more reportings as hoaxes, as their position infers that reportings are either hoaxes, misidentifications or clinical issues, etc., but I am rather surprised that many of those who strive to do their diligent best to vett reportings are proponents, in many cases those who have reported visual encounters themselves. I can't thing of anything more to police hoaxes. There is no governing body of Sasquatchery. Other than when actual laws are broken, everyone is quite free to dress up and take blurry pictures and put them on the internet, just for fun. Or just for profit.  the general public doesn't consider the subject. . At all. To them a member of the 'bigfoot' community that most of us have long considered a charlatan is as believable as the most conscientious, honest, protocol following person that is involved in it.

When something concrete is obtained, maybe this will change. Till then I think the 'community' will do the best it can, the 'members' will follow their own hearts, and hopefully heads, and that things will pretty much stay the same.

[Guest]

I think for the most part, obvious hoaxes ARE shot down immediately. The Bigfoot community ( whatever you want to refer to us as) already does a pretty good job at looking at evidence, conducting interviews and asking the tough questions. The community is made up of all types of people from non believers, skeptics, field researchers, witnesses and of course hoaxers. I learned from the most recent hoax ( dead Bigfoot tour ) no matter how much you scream from the roof tops or how much evidence is provided, you will still have some people so desperate for the story to be true they will turn a blind eye to all reason. Eventually they will have to learn the hard way about hoaxers in the Bigfoot world. As I mentioned before, the energy one would have to exhaust to prove every claim as factual is time I personally don't have to spare. Time proving Bigfoot actually does exist would be much better spent.

[Guest]

Time proving Bigfoot actually does exist would be much better spent.

 

Thats a good one.

We have NO face!!!!!!!

99 percent of humanity sees the whole kit and kaboodle as a chewbacca mask...,,,,, where is the zipper!? Todd Standing is a hoaxer? Prove it! Ignoring the fact of course that everyone thinks the whole subject is a sham! Its folly........

Concentrate efforts that make a difference! I'm not saying one can not have an opinion or express it. But teams with recorders and yard sticks going to interview the Standings of the world???? Ummmmm no!

Sounds like most people have it right. I guess Im doing my job well.

[Guest DWA]

no matter how much you scream from the roof tops or how much evidence is provided, you will still have some people so desperate for the story to be true the nonexistence of a garden-variety primate that they will turn a blind eye to all reason. Eventually they will have to learn the hard way about hoaxers in the Bigfoot world reality on planet Earth .

Edited to be applicable to bigfoot skeptics as well. 

[SWWASAS]

If the bigfoot community does not vet reports who will? We don't know a lot about BF but we know more than anyone else. Skeptics claim we are all in bed together but most of the biggest hoaxers have been declared that by the BF community themselves. Skeptics of course claim anything promoting BF to be fiction, hallucination, mass hysteria, misidentification, hoax and fabrication so they are hardly objective in any sort of judgment. There is a danger in that any community develops what is considered a norm, or something acceptable to the majority. We see that in the rejection of anything remotely paranormal by many. Guess what, BF is paranormal by definition no matter what its capabilities really are. I am guessing that BFRO considers me unreliable or certainly not reliable enough to investigate my reports. I have even seen proponents here declare that anyone with more than one encounter is making them up. I was not aware that there was a quota but some must think so. So all of those things are evidence of the community establishing norms and judging against those norms. That promotes herd think, stifles creative thinking, and in a way is doing what main stream science has done to the subject.

[Guest DWA]

One correction to the above post:  ALL DEBUNKING in this field has been done by the proponents!  The skeptics simply are not knowledgeable enough about the relevant topics.

 

And I will never understand how someone could think it not possible that someone could have multiple encounters.  Really, *is there a rule*?  I have read a number of reports of someone seeing one at the same road crossing twice within a short period.  Wild animal behavior, folks.  If they are real it is inevitable that some people are gonna see more than one.  Way the world works.  Reality does not work the way bigfoot skeptics would like it to.  (Nor proponents hind-pained over people who have seen more than them.)  The evidence would not exist if "nobody ever sees one."

Edited April 19, 2015 by DWA

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Yeah, you debunked the heck out of the Alberta Conservation Association.

 

How DARE They...

[Guest]

Ok here we go! Some of you people that really honestly believe you are living around sasquatch, you need to call me so I can come shoot one. I will prove it once and for all. The only way is with a body and I will.make it happen. I will take no less than two other people with me for witnesses. We will have a chopper ready in case we are back in the bush a long ways. I'm not going to drag one of those things out and I will not leave the body. I will have at least two other gunmen with me in case things go south. I could only hope that a hoaxer doesn't get in the mix because I don't feel like going to prison. So if there is anyone out there that doesn't have the guts to pull the trigger, message me and we can work this out. It's the least I could do for our bigfoot community!