The Impact of Hoaxing - Has It Jaded Us Unnecessarily?

[TedSallis]

I just visited the Cryptomundo site, that has posted some pictures alleged found recently but taken in 1966 of a Bigfoot and his family.

 

I didn't even look at the video with the photos and went straight for the comments, which were both dismissive and snarky.

 

It made me wonder if the vast amount of hoaxes, whether through photos, videos, footprints or whatever, hasn't made the people who honestly think this creature exists just a bit TOO cynical. We KNOW what can be done in the realm of photoshopping and editing, and we've been "burned" so many times, that now we "default" to a position of skepticism.

 

That's an understandable position, of course, but it might lead to a closed mind and some missed opportunities down the road.  What if some of these "obviously" fake photos aren't fake, but we just throw them in the hoax basket because it's easier than getting our hopes up and being burned again?

 

There's no way to know of course, because none of them are definitive and until there's real physical proof, photos will just be a sideshow.  But I wonder if for instance, the PG film were made today, would anyone even believe it?  One of the strongest arguments for it being real is the fact that the tech didn't exist back then to hoax that convincingly.  Well, now the tech has advanced quite a bit (though we still can't reproduce the PG)  and we all know it so are we doomed to be blinded even in the fact of something authentic?

 

Just curious.

[Twist]

57 minutes ago, TedSallis said:

What if some of these "obviously" fake photos aren't fake, but we just throw them in the hoax basket because it's easier than getting our hopes up and being burned again?

 

Well by the way people are looking into the NCBFr picture nothing will go without scrutiny,  It may get tossed out into the hoax basket but you can count on it still being brought up every few months or year depending on how much debate it spurs.  I believe most of it is out of boredom.  

[ioyza]

I've found the BF community to be incredibly cynical in this regard, the cries of "hoax! suit! cgi!" are almost a knee-jerk reaction to any new photo or video.

 

Another phrase that comes up a lot is that a sasquatch looks "too good to be true" - think about the Independence Day footage. What did you expect one to look like then?

 

Honestly, and I know this is a loaded name by now, I think the same thing about Todd Standing's two close-up face vids. Remember when someone took the photoshop plugin from the 90s used to create the Animorphs series book covers and morphed the sasquatch face into Standing's, thereby "proving" he was actually the sasquatch? Then everyone dogpiled the guy, he kind of cracked under the stress and threw up his hands and quit. Part of the problem is that people think they know what our photo and video editing capabilities are, without actually having a clue how these technologies work, and therefore drastically overestimate them in their minds. The idea of a fully-CGI sasquatch looking believable is ridiculous - did Avatar, with all its ground-breaking visual effects, look real?

 

I think another part of it is the perception of the field as hoax-laden, but I'm not sure this is as true as people think either. Has anyone ever tried to actually compile a list of known hoaxes? It came up not too long ago on the BF subreddit, and most of the responses weren't known hoaxes, just prime examples for this thread - videos people thought looked fake, but hadn't been proven or confessed either way. 

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much, because 95% of these videos are useless anyway. They're just the answer to the skeptics' question: "With all these people with cameras and cell phones running around, why aren't there any photos or videos??"

[PBeaton]

TedSallis,

 

I look at everything related to the subject...with skepticism...an go from there. I seen the two images from the Crypto site, first image, the dog looked like the only actual animal in the photo, 2nd image looked better, but still did nothin' for me. They just didn't look like ol' photos to me.

 

I think a photo or video will have to be pretty compellin' these days, NCBFr's photo is a example, no disrespect to him, but the photo offers nothin' if you have to guess. Even if there is somethin' in his photo, the quality is such you cannot determine much...if anythin'. In which case, for myself, I let it go.

 

However, I still think a decent photo/video can be incredibly important an valuable !

 

Pat...  

[TritonTr196]

We simply don't care about hoaxes and never waste our time on reading or seeing them. Hoaxes have never jaded us in our quest. As far as our personal video and photos, those are for us to know what's going on in our research areas. We know they won't prove anything, but we use our pictures and videos as tools just like our flirs and casting material, ect, to further and help our research more, not to put out to the public.

 

There are a lot of hoaxes. I think most of it is this, So called researchers are so hard up for youtube views or facebook likes that they have to make up blurry pictures, lying stories, and everything else imaginable. Just to get those few likes or views on their videos... It's sad really, that people have to do this just to have fake internet friends. Because before the internet and digital cameras, it was very rare you heard of a Bigfoot hoax. It just wasn't feasible to hoax when you didn't have a media outlet for your fake stuff.

[norseman]

Media will never advance this subject one inch because the public and science is cynical.....the PGF proved that.

 

So yes...it's quite possible that some media is authentic but proclaimed a hoax. Not many researchers investigate these videos and photos anyhow. Many more are just a video with no location, with no possible way of investigating them. So size and scale will never be known. And that is what makes the PGF different...... We know the location and we know the trackway is associated with the film.

 

 

 

 

[VAfooter]

I do think the hoaxes have increased doubt in the community, getting burned time after time will do that to you. But I also think that is probably not a bad thing. For photographic evidence to mean anything, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

 

For me, unless it is fairly clear and close, I do not give it a lot of thought. Does not mean it is not a authentic photo, but just not conclusive enough for my tastes. If it meets my conditions, then I take more interest in it, and usually start finding stuff that does not seem right to me or goes against the grain of standard BF lore. Again, it does not mean it is fake, just that I have unanswered questions about it. A couple of images (PGF stills notwithstanding...) have grabbed my attention over the years as being good enough to make one wonder. But I think one has been declared a hoax (but have not really seen any explanations as to why other than it just is...) and one is well, kind of weird.

 

http://cryptidchronicles.tumblr.com/post/49740191218/the-beast-of-7-chutes-dogman-bigfoot-what-is

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/bigfoot.jpg

(looks better in my opinion when it has not been enlarged so much)

 

 

Both could very well be fakes, but they at least made me take a second look and do a bit more study on them.

 

 

 

 

[MIB]

There are absolutely pieces of legitimate evidence and legitimate accounts which have been declared hoaxes.   It is ironic when a person is accused of doing shoddy, sloppy, incomplete investigation when it is precisely shoddy, sloppy, incomplete investigation which leads the accuser to their erroneous conclusion.

 

Be very, very careful about who you trust to do your homework and pass your judgements for you.   If they are wrong in your name, you are still responsible for the signed blank check you handed them.

 

MIB

[TedSallis]

Does anyone think it is even POSSIBLE for media of a REAL Bigfoot to be believed these days?  We've got our heads so full of the possibilities of digital hoaxing could any of these remote encounters, usually involving one or a very few witnesses, ever convince anyone? 

 

Sadly, I would say "no."  I'm to the point where even though I enjoy looking at the stuff, it just doesn't hit me like it used to because I can never be sure anymore.  I guess what I'm getting at it that it seems as if all this media has basically been rendered...valueless.  In the absence of a mass (and I mean MASS) sighting, only a specimen seems to have any chance of pushing the creature into the realm of the recognized and believable.

 

Has there ever been an animal that was widely recognized as existing just based on photo or video alone?  I'm drawing a blank...maybe the giant squid?

[PBeaton]

It's not the media, but the evidence. Any evidence is its own evidence, so in my opinion, if folks want to toss it into a particular bin...that's up to them. John Green's book the Apes Among Us teaches us that all sightings are valuable...not valueless ! Evidence is evidence, it's the weight behind it that is relevant.

 

The giant squid had its doubters back in the day.  

[gigantor]

I think that part of the problem is the presentation of the evidence.

 

People put out pics/video with no context or details about how, where, when and by whom it was obtained. When that happens, red flags fly and everyone thinks its just another possible hoax.

 

If a pic/video were backed by the witness, in context with location etc. it would be received much better.

[norseman]

And I agree with that Gig, but ultimately it's always going to be a guy in a suit with a vast majority of people who cannot fathom a creature like this existing out there.

[hiflier]

Also, guys in suits lately haven't faired too well. Run over by cars and even getting shot. As bad is it sounds it could be that hoaxing in suits isn't such a good idea and may have even served to reduce the chances of being hoaxed by guy-in-a-suit. At least anyone who reads the news might think twice about pulling such a stunt. While the thought might initially be funny to run around pretending to be Sasquatch the potential outcome certainly isn't. The "Killing Bigfoot" guys no doubt would be devastated should something turn out to be not what they expected.

Edited February 11, 2017 by hiflier

[VAfooter]

14 hours ago, TedSallis said:

Does anyone think it is even POSSIBLE for media of a REAL Bigfoot to be believed these days?

 

I would say yes, but the circumstances would have to be so perfect that I believe it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ever occur. I wrote this up a while back as a possible scenario where it could conceivably happen.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/48381-how-will-it-happen/&do=findComment&comment=853494

 

 

But for the average cell phone video/pic you see these days, I agree; no way.

 

[Trogluddite]

I would say that they have provide necessary jadedness.  I stumbled onto the BFF quite late when I began looking into this topic and first found a few sites that laid out who all the interested parties were in Big-money-foot.com, and provided documented instances of some of these people faking photos, wood knocks, tracks, stone-throwing, and even the supposed finding of bodies.  The traveling snake-oil salesmen of yore would be proud of their efforts to make bigfoot into a profit center.    

 

On 2/10/2017 at 6:04 PM, ioyza said:

....

I think another part of it is the perception of the field as hoax-laden, but I'm not sure this is as true as people think either. Has anyone ever tried to actually compile a list of known hoaxes? It came up not too long ago on the BF subreddit, and most of the responses weren't known hoaxes, just prime examples for this thread - videos people thought looked fake, but hadn't been proven or confessed either way. 

.....

 

Yep.  In addition to my database, I have a list of "researchers" who are reported to have been caught knowingly and purposefully hoaxing and known hoaxes.  I use that information as a factor in evaluating the credibility of reports in my database - if the "researcher" is rotten one time, it's hard to trust anything from that researcher any other time.  Also, if a series of reports just happen to occur in the vicinity of a known hoax, they may be tainted as well.  However, that is something that each individual has to do on their own as there is no Better Bigfoot Bureau that objectively certifies researchers or reports.

 

On 2/10/2017 at 7:37 PM, VAfooter said:

I do think the hoaxes have increased doubt in the community, getting burned time after time will do that to you. But I also think that is probably not a bad thing. For photographic evidence to mean anything, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny....

 

Agreed.  Although passions can occasionally run high and sharp elbows get thrown, this place is pretty good at doing neutral, none-outcome-based, analysis.  

 

21 hours ago, MIB said:

There are absolutely pieces of legitimate evidence and legitimate accounts which have been declared hoaxes.   It is ironic when a person is accused of doing shoddy, sloppy, incomplete investigation when it is precisely shoddy, sloppy, incomplete investigation which leads the accuser to their erroneous conclusion.

And to tie back to my comment above, this is why everyone has to have their own reference point for what researchers and evidence that they trust or don't trust.  Assuming that you're describing a case where objective truth can't be known with certainty (i.e., you're the witness who has the evidence and knows the certainty of it's validity), people can legitimately disagree on whether something should or should not be accepted as valid evidence w/o either of them being wrong or mule-headed. One reasonable man sees it one way, another reasonable man sees it another.  

 

And to be fair, absent strong evidence that something is in fact a hoax or bad ID, then declaring something a conclusive hoax should be almost as rare as calling something conclusive evidence of bigfoot.