Why Would Proponents Waste Their Time Believing?

[Guest insanity42]

One cast was fake, therefore every cast must be fake.  This is a great example of false progression of logic.

I agree, unless every one is determined as a fake/hoax or misidentification, there is a possibility one or more are authentic.

[Guest Crowlogic]

One cast was fake, therefore every cast must be fake.  This is a great example of false progression of logic.

What the proponent fails to grasp is the weight of the hoax tradition that has plagued the issue from the beginning.  Every stitch of circumstantial evidence is weakened by two very oppressing factors.  The first is the hoaxing factor and the other is the absence of proof of the animal itself.  

[chelefoot]

Has any bigfoot cast been proven to be 100% having come from the beast in question?  Seeing the photo of John Green studying the phony Wallace stomper trackway back in the 60's was a very sobering moment when I learned the track line was fake. 

ALL evidence must be studied...even the fakes.

[Oonjerah]

^ Crowlogic

I would do hoaxes about Calico Cats ... but it would influence their existence not at all.

If I did hoaxes about Green Unicorns ... it would not make them more unreal.

Hoaxes about Bigfoot, for all their popularity, have 0 effect on Bigfoot numbers.

"the weight of the hoax tradition" is 0.

Hoaxes prove nothing, have no influence on reality. Period.

[Old Dog]

What the proponent fails to grasp is the weight of the hoax tradition that has plagued the issue from the beginning.  Every stitch of circumstantial evidence is weakened by two very oppressing factors.  The first is the hoaxing factor and the other is the absence of proof of the animal itself.  

 

One cannot rely on the absence of proof stance.  One cannot prove a negative, it is fools task.  The weight of one or another hoax has no basis for any subsequent evidence, it must all be taken separately and on it own merits.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

The claim that all publicized bigfoot events of the past 40 years have been proven to be a hoax is simply not accurate. Skeptics sometimes use the word "proof" in the exact same manner in which they condemn its use by proponents. What constitutes proof of a bigfoot event being a hoax? A claim? Well when the claim is pro-bigfoot the skeptics and non-believers will have none of that personal testimony, while when the same type of testimony is anti-bigfoot it is accepted and touted as proof. The double-standard is simply ridiculous. Even personal testimony from someone claiming to have perpetrated a hoax cannot be accepted as fact, the reason being that such a claim may or may not be accurate. There are certainly individuals who will attempt to take credit for something that they had no involvement in, therefore how can one admission be judged any differently than another? Any such admission is just as likely to be true as it is false, and what we are left with is the exact same scenario present when attempting to separate the real videos from the hoaxes- no solid or foolproof method based on objective evidence, but instead, because of the many unknowns, we are left with our own opinions.

 

In what other ways besides personal testimony has evidence supposedly been proven to be a hoax? Occasionally a hoax is obvious, although most videos of this nature do not become popular or persist within the community due to this fact, therefore these do not really apply to the conversation at hand. In fact, the more I think about it, there is really no way a video can be proven to be a hoax. There might be a greater chance of this or that video being a hoax, but how can one prove either to be the case? Even using scientific methods the only thing that can be done that is definitive is to analyze a sample, and the only definitive sample is a type specimen, as opposed to a hair or tissue sample. This is because there is no chain of evidence or chain of custody with such a sample, meaning that there is nothing to say that the sample came directly from a bigfoot and made it to a lab. Therefore even if someone were able to test some piece of evidence associated with a particular bigfoot case, and that evidence came back negative, this does not automatically mean hoax- unless that sample was purported to be taken directly from a bigfoot, which is rarely if ever going to happen.

 

A piece of a body, a tissue sample, such as the Smeja incident, also falls into this category. Some would say that it was proven to be a hoax because the tissue tested was a known animal. But as I just pointed out, there was nothing to definitively say that the tissue sample was part of what was left at the site. Therefore there is no proof that the incident was a hoax. And again, that is about as scientific as you can hope to get when trying to prove a bigfoot incident was simply fabricated. There are just not many other ways to use science to prove a hoax. There are certain scientific procedures that may give one more data, but this will not constitute proof. So just as it is difficult to prove the legitimacy of a piece of bigfoot evidence, it is equally difficult to prove the opposite, that a piece of evidence or a sighting was a hoax.

[Old Dog]

^ In defense of Crowlogic's original post, he does make a distinction by stating "  So far with the possible exception of the PGF every well known publicized bigfoot event of the past 40 years has been determined to be a hoax."  Agreed, it is a thin distinction, but a distinction none the less.  I can't say that I agree personally with that statement, but there have been some doozies for sure.  Maybe it would help if Crowlogic could elaborate on what he considers to be the "well known publicized events".  Just tossing out a blanket statement like that leaves a lot for conjecture.

[Faenor]

This thread needs about 20% more DWA. Where he at

[Squatchy McSquatch]

They saw something the rest of us can't comprehend. But they can never prove it.

 

It's an much intimate encounter in which the proponent could not have been mistaken; they know what they saw and it was a Bigfoot.

[Guest]

^ In defense of Crowlogic's original post, he does make a distinction by stating "  So far with the possible exception of the PGF every well known publicized bigfoot event of the past 40 years has been determined to be a hoax."  Agreed, it is a thin distinction, but a distinction none the less.  I can't say that I agree personally with that statement, but there have been some doozies for sure.  Maybe it would help if Crowlogic could elaborate on what he considers to be the "well known publicized events".  Just tossing out a blanket statement like that leaves a lot for conjecture.

 

I guess he just 'wants to believe' that statement.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^ In defense of Crowlogic's original post, he does make a distinction by stating "  So far with the possible exception of the PGF every well known publicized bigfoot event of the past 40 years has been determined to be a hoax."  Agreed, it is a thin distinction, but a distinction none the less.  I can't say that I agree personally with that statement, but there have been some doozies for sure.  Maybe it would help if Crowlogic could elaborate on what he considers to be the "well known publicized events".  Just tossing out a blanket statement like that leaves a lot for conjecture.

Well known and well publicized hoaxes.  Ray Wallace, Ivan Marx, Minnesota Iceman, Bogfoot in a freezer (Georgia),  Todd Standing., Buggs and the Texas Bigfopt shootings,  Rick Dyer's most recent enterprise.   Memorial Day Footage which has been largely dismissed in recent times.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest]

^

If you think the above are the only well known and well publicized bigfoot events of the last 40 years that that explains where you are going wrong.

[WSA]

That's a ping.  For gawd's sake my friend, broaden your repertoire.  They got lending libraries where you are from?

[TD-40]

Because some people have had real experiences. And some of us (including myself) have come across real evidence. And taken in totality, all the legends, folklore, stories, witnesses, over the past few centuries cannot be one giant hoax.

[Old Dog]

Well known and well publicized hoaxes.  Ray Wallace, Ivan Marx, Minnesota Iceman, Bogfoot in a freezer (Georgia),  Todd Standing., Buggs and the Texas Bigfopt shootings,  Rick Dyer's most recent enterprise.   Memorial Day Footage which has been largely dismissed in recent times.

 

See that's where the problem lies.  Over the entirety of the Sasquatch legends existence, these handful of P.T. Barnum like events have come to shape the impression of the story of Sasquatch.  You get hundreds, if not thousands of reports of Sasquatch encounters and sightings, then a denier tosses in, "But what about Dyer, or What about Marx" and so on and so on.  When one comes right down to brass tacks, neither side has any better proof than the other of the existence or non- existence of the creature, yet extremists on both sides are sure they have the definitive proof to back their stance.  I find it hard to believe that there are that many people running around in the forests and woods making fake footprints, and sometimes miles away from any habitation by man, just in the hopes that someone will run across them and think it's a Sasquatch.  I find it equally hard to believe that there are that many people, in the hundreds and thousands who misidentify what they see in the forests and woods also.  One can try and justify all of that as a mass conspiracy to hoax the general public to themselves, but I think there just might be something to some of these encounters and sightings.  If anyone thinks they are all just hoaxes, then I say Prove It.  don't just sit back and deny it, but PROVE IT, to the same level of proof that you demand from those who claim they have seen something or have foot casts or whatever the evidence is.  I want the proof as bad as anyone, but I'm not naive enough to think everything is a hoax, sham, or misidentification.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Old Dog