Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You can tell someone's a hoaxer if all they have is a bunch of videos repeating the same thing without posting anything of substance to back them up. No pictures or video of the actual creatures. Just marbles, fish, man-made stick structures and other types of faked evidence that give it away. To me it's pretty obvious that it's attention-seeking and not actual research. It sounds like everyone here knows that this guy is hoaxing, yet certain individuals choose to defend him. It doesn't make sense, unless of course they're no different than him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 OS, Paterson has posted 3 photos of the squatch in his research area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Thanks Jodie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You can tell someone's a hoaxer if all they have is a bunch of videos repeating the same thing without posting anything of substance to back them up. No pictures or video of the actual creatures. Just marbles, fish, man-made stick structures and other types of faked evidence that give it away. To me it's pretty obvious that it's attention-seeking and not actual research. It sounds like everyone here knows that this guy is hoaxing, yet certain individuals choose to defend him. It doesn't make sense, unless of course they're no different than him? Interesting...very interesting. Wouldn't congruent details in the defender's encounter accounts negate any real chance of fraud or collusion about their own accounts? Or...are you implying that congruent details are not a reliable indicator of veracity concerning internet sightings? I think I might take a look at some of the known hoaxer threads involving Mike, Dyer and Standing just to see who was defending them in case there's the slightest chance they might have an ulterior motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 The game has gotten more clever. So we once had videos/film with no sound then we got videos with potential sound, now we've got sound alone. So tell me why don't we have a video with sound of one of them actually making those sounds? Few people ever claim to see one vocalize let alone having a camera on one at that moment. Though this is exactly how I prepared myself to document such an event from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Except that the fingers that drew the handprint are human size. Only a part of one of the prints, perhaps. Did you read what BigTreeWalker said? Part of the print he was talking about could be a real print, and part of it (the smaller lines) drawn in. The parsimonious solution here is that Mike is the trickster, and this support of him sounds a lot like apologetics. You are fitting the evidence to conform to your wishes, not objectively looking at the evidence. Why would sasquatch want to discredit Mike? Do you really think Mike looked at that handprint and thought it was a real one? If it was a joke on him, shouldn't he have realized? He's either a hoaxer or extremely unintelligent, which is it? There’s nothing wishful about my thinking (though you seem to wish there were). Everything that has happened to Sasquatch Ontario has happened to me, or to someone I know. So, because I know I’m not unique, and because I know that everything he’s documenting is possible, there’s absolutely no reason to think that Sasquatch Ontario isn’t telling the truth about every single thing. (If you start hanging out with your homeboys in the foothills, you’ll start to see how commonplace all this stuff really is.) I have no idea what Mike thought when he first saw the handprint. I only know he knew he didn't make it. He did realize at some point, though, that that particular handprint was drawn on. And of course he knew, at that point, that it was a joke. He called the BF "Mr. Funny" for a long time. The hairy guys aren’t trying to "discredit" anybody. They’re just having fun with him. Friends do joke with each other, as we all know. Edited June 2, 2015 by LeafTalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I am keeping an open mind about the possibility of these things happening, and I would love to have personal confirmation. I also will never stop applying critical thinking to the things I experience. I don't know Mike, but to me he seems to be a bit of a trickster. I don't find him particularly malicious, but I don't find him completely honest either. That's just my impression. It's possible that I would have a different perspective if I had had similar experiences, but from where I sit, much of the evidence seems a little fishy to me. Speaking of fishy, how do you explain the fish eye? That couldn't have been the BF playing a joke.... I don't think I'm being closed minded here, I really just don't buy Mike's story. Again, it's not on the principal of it, it's in the particulars of this case. He may have had a real encounter, but I don't think all of his evidence is legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I appreciate your attempt to keep an open mind, and I have a feeling you are about to get that different perspective, that personal confirmation you're talking about. The fish eye? That's absoLUTELY the BF playing a joke. Why do you think it couldn't be? They know what fish are, and they know we expect/want pictures of them, not fish. It's the perfect joke. I personally think they're commenting on our mania for 'evidence', and laughing about it, bless their hearts. Wouldn't you be laughing, if you were they, watching all our frantic efforts to get the single piece of evidence that will change history and make us rich? We are pretty ridiculous... But some of them like some of us anyway, which I find very endearing. I think I understand why some people don't "trust" Mike, but I believe they're seriously misinterpreting some things. There's a guarded quality to his speech and his writing sometimes, but it comes from an effort to keep his cool under difficult circumstances, not from an attempt to hide the truth. If you've had a life that's been mostly difficult, it's easy to understand his guardedness. If you haven't had such a life, it might be more tempting to confuse his mixture of caution and bravery with dishonesty. But it would be quite misguided, in my opinion, to do so. Looking forward to hearing about your adventures with your homeboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Blah blah blah blah blah...lol...same old same old ..heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Leaftalker, I believe that fish eye is a picture from the internet, blurred with photoshop. Unless BF are getting good at photoshop, I can't see how that could be them. Even if I had my own experiences, I really am not sure I can accept Mike's story. It just seems a little too convenient to explain suspicious evidence as the BF playing a joke. All of my BS alarms are buzzing and I have gotten along pretty well trusting them. Again, I am open minded, but I also need validation for my experiences. The PGF for instance, gives more and more depth the more we study it. Mike's evidences seems to fall apart when it's looked at closely. I trust your sincerity, but I wonder if your own experiences are clouding your ability to see someone who may be fabricating evidence. Perhaps you recognize some truth, and maybe there is some, but IMO some of this stuff really looks like a human hoaxer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I hope you get the validation you need. Blah blah blah blah blah...lol...same old same old ..heh I know, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) The fish eye? That's absoLUTELY the BF playing a joke. Why do you think it couldn't be? They know what fish are, and they know we expect/want pictures of them, not fish. It's the perfect joke. .. after it learned what pictures are, and that the camera is for taking those pictures, and how to turn the power on (and understanding what "power" is and why it's needed), and then operating the shutter button, then of course making sure to direct the proper lens towards the fish eye, and framing it properly too. Those pesky all-knowing footses. I personally think they're commenting on our mania for 'evidence', and laughing about it, bless their hearts. Wouldn't you be laughing, if you were they, watching all our frantic efforts to get the single piece of evidence that will change history and make us rich? We are pretty ridiculous... But some of them like some of us anyway, which I find very endearing. ..because Bigfoot knows what evidence is and what it's used for, and what being rich is all about, and the concept behind money. Edited June 2, 2015 by roguefooter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 ^And don't forget the wooden door frame behind "him" in the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 The Bigfoot aren't the only ones saying, "Bless their little hearts." Many of the same folks that are buying this nonsense bought Dyer's claims, too. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Why is it that we cannot have some legitimate individuals getting the attention, guys like this are the reason skeptics surround this subject. If we are to move forward with researching this creature we need a purging mechanism that acts a whole lot quicker, given enough of a noose these guys generally hang themselves which is no surprise. Miiiike Miiike I hear it now, but if there is anything legit to his research he threw it away with all the spiritualization and paranormal association, and what I would call a blatant attempt to skew things in a certain direction. Could he have actually had Sasquatch activity, I would bet he did, but it is very easy to misinterpret, as well as embellish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts