The Impact of Hoaxing - Has It Jaded Us Unnecessarily?

[Yuchi1]

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:32 PM, TritonTr196 said:

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.

 

Word.

[wiiawiwb]

I like sharing ideas and techniques with all the awesome folks on this forum and also talking with friends and family about the subject matter. Some believe while others aren't convinced. That's all ok. In the end, I could give a hoot whether anything I do is seen or believed by others.  I know what I've heard and seen and there isn't a human alive who could convince me otherwise.

 

Hoaxers have no impact whatsoever in anything I do related to sasquatch.

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[Old Dog]

One way we try to eliminate, or at the very least reduce suspicion of hoaxing is to use actual 35 mm film cameras and Polaroids.  Yeah, you can still buy that stuff.  If you produce a picture in those mediums, there is little to no chance of faking the actual photo.  I'm not saying you can't fake the other aspects of the encounter or the evidence, but it removes one element from the equation.  With 35 mm or Polaroids, there is no digital manipulation, and they can be examined for alterations.  We also run suspect photos that are digital through a filtering system that will tell us if an image has been digitally altered.  That programming will also give us the meta data of the camera it was shot from and if any programs, such as Photo Shop, has been used.

 

Still, there are a lot of hoaxes we come across, and just toss them away when offered to us.  We find one questionable factor and the whole mess is tossed because it no longer holds any veracity.  We do come across items that show no altering or hoaxing, but they are so ambiguous as to have no value even if it were the real thing.  This would most often be your blobsquatch.  

[hiflier]

Thank you for mentioning 35mm film cameras. I use Pentax K1000's. Good solid workhorses. I have several lenses and some standard filters including polarizers. Of course to getting a film medium to a digital format does allow for image manipulation. But when looking at detail I would much rather deal with grain which can be controlled than pixels any day. I also VERY much like the instant shutter although digital has come some lengths to improve on that. Until I got better I used polaroids to set up a shot or to simply see how B&W contrasts would look to help in choosing filters. Saved a lot of film cost with that method. Got some old thumb winders and one with some auto features- all film.

[Mendoza]

I actually tend to feel the opposite:  I still see what in my opinion are far too many Bigfoot enthusiasts taking far too many reports at face value, in spite of the known problem of hoaxing.

[hiflier]

We also don't seem to get the stories that had the impact that the older stories had. There is a dramatic element missing in that witnesses in previous decades up until about 20 years ago were experiencing something very tangible. The encounters in many of those reports were of a rather serious nature and folks apparently weren't nearly as inhibited in the retelling of those accounts. The mystery is still there so don't get me wrong but something has changed in whatever interactions are occurring today as opposed to times past. We're not getting the hundreds of footprint trackways, so in a sense evidence is becoming weaker. Something is going on with this subject and I'm just not able to put my finger on the reason. What am I missing? Has Sasquatch pulled so far back or are their numbers shrinking?

 

Sure there seems to be a lot of reports but the report type isn't the same somehow. There seems to be something a little too consistent in the style of the newer reports. The variety in the types of reports has shrunk down to where most reports nowadays have a kind of clone element to them. Something's missing. I'm not jaded but there is a sense in the data that things are moving toward accounts becoming more generic for want of a better word. The reports simply are not as crisp shall I say as they used to be. Yeah, it's a fine point but it is one that is more felt when reading "modern" reports whereas the "oldies" fired the imagination to a greater degree. And that feeling is telling me something is not quite right about what I've been reading and researching lately.   

[Trogluddite]

1 hour ago, Old Dog said:

One way we try to eliminate, or at the very least reduce suspicion of hoaxing is to use actual 35 mm film cameras and Polaroids.

Half (or 3/4s?) of the board may not have any idea of what you are talking about.  Might as well make a poster describing these, mimeograph it, then have runners distribute them.  

[MIB]

57 minutes ago, hiflier said:

We also don't seem to get the stories that had the impact that the older stories had. There is a dramatic element missing in that witnesses in previous decades up until about 20 years ago were experiencing something very tangible. The encounters in many of those reports were of a rather serious nature and folks apparently weren't nearly as inhibited in the retelling of those accounts. The mystery is still there so don't get me wrong but something has changed in whatever interactions are occurring today as opposed to times past. We're not getting the hundreds of footprint trackways, so in a sense evidence is becoming weaker. Something is going on with this subject and I'm just not able to put my finger on the reason. What am I missing? Has Sasquatch pulled so far back or are their numbers shrinking?

 

Sure there seems to be a lot of reports but the report type isn't the same somehow. There seems to be something a little too consistent in the style of the newer reports. The variety in the types of reports has shrunk down to where most reports nowadays have a kind of clone element to them. Something's missing. I'm not jaded but there is a sense in the data that things are moving toward accounts becoming more generic for want of a better word. The reports simply are not as crisp shall I say as they used to be. Yeah, it's a fine point but it is one that is more felt when reading "modern" reports whereas the "oldies" fired the imagination to a greater degree. And that feeling is telling me something is not quite right about what I've been reading and researching lately.   

 

It's because everyone who has been involved very long knows that stuff was not enough to be proof back in the day and it sure isn't proof today.   I found 2 tracks last summer.  One was a partial and not real clear but it was obvious enough in person what made it.   I looked at it, decided it wasn't even good enough to photograph, so I walked away.    In 1970 who, looking for bigfoot, would have done that with a bigfoot track?   The other one was better, obviously 5 longer, bare toes and no claws, but it was on a steep angle, not castable, and not real great.   I took a couple pictures, then the hornets got kind of thick so I left.   Must have smelled food in my pack.   

 

I think a lot of people are finding a lot of evidence, it just doesn't have the "wow" 'cause the scoftics are winning.   There's no point in bringing forward something short of absolute proof, if you do, you're going to get trashed.    So .. don't. 

 

MIB

Edited February 14, 2017 by MIB

[Patterson-Gimlin]

No pictures or videos will ever be accepted as proof.  I have seen as we all have compelling pictures and videos.

Not just the Patterson film. To be truly accepted by science and the general public only a specimen will do.

To answer the question, I would say the countless number of hoaxes have affected the legitimacy of the subject.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

It's because everyone who has been involved very long knows that stuff was not enough to be proof back in the day and it sure isn't proof today

 

Yes, what you say is true of course but there is still a difference in what I would say is dramatic creature action and proximity- proof or not. Doing things like stepping over fences and chasing horses, killing dogs, taking bullets, chasing people and vehicles, running in deep snow, and reports involving LEO's and Forestry Service people. All of that seems to be disappearing and now reports are.........IDK.......more mundane? People see the creature but I see little if anything regarding the observed superhuman stunts in many older accounts. Almost as if Sasquatch has toned down its act?

 

Yes, they get seen, but not for the durations that older encounter incidents claim. I mean watching a Sasquatch or two, or a group, for 15 minutes or half an hour or more just isn't happening. So are the older reports just lies? Or has the creature changes it's tactics- or wariness because there's so many more Humans around? There certainly does appear to be a shift in the TYPE of reports coming in. Less tangible in an odd sort of way maybe? It's not adding up IMHO.  

Edited February 14, 2017 by hiflier

[JKH]

Then you're not paying attention.

[ioyza]

The "classics" are more dramatic than modern reports? I think maybe you're jaded, or you're comparing the small handful of reports that became famous over the years to the thousands that are coming out now - many of which are simply 'bigfoot crossed the road'? 

 

I'm still not convinced hoaxing is actually as rampant in this field as many seem to think. Who can show me the list, with the documentation for the process by which each video is thoroughly debunked and shown to be a hoax? I've watched this process take place in forum threads and seen how wildly unscientific it can be, and how easily people become convinced of hoaxing. 

 

I think almost all videos belong in one of three categories:

 

1) Obvious hoax: we're talking ButchyKid, Rick Dyer obvious.

2) Blobsquatch: genuine but inconclusive

3) Near-impossible to fake quality footage: basically just the PGF, maybe a few others.

 

I've yet to really see examples of the fourth kind: the convincing hoax. 

 

Ultimately the blobsquatches are inconsequential, but the paranoia about hoaxing and subsequent overanalyzing of every video and witch hunting of the people releasing them are the legacy of people like Dyer as trolls of this community.

[Mendoza]

21 hours ago, MIB said:

I think a lot of people are finding a lot of evidence, it just doesn't have the "wow" 'cause the scoftics are winning.   There's no point in bringing forward something short of absolute proof, if you do, you're going to get trashed.    So .. don't. 

 

MIB

 

True only if the primary goal is to prove the existence of Bigfoot to the scientific community and the general public.  Aside from these goals, gathering of mundane data is still worthwhile.  The more data, the more research can be done towards determining Bigfoot's actual range, behavior, ecology, taxonomy, etc.

20 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Yes, what you say is true of course but there is still a difference in what I would say is dramatic creature action and proximity- proof or not. Doing things like stepping over fences and chasing horses, killing dogs, taking bullets, chasing people and vehicles, running in deep snow, and reports involving LEO's and Forestry Service people. All of that seems to be disappearing and now reports are.........IDK.......more mundane? People see the creature but I see little if anything regarding the observed superhuman stunts in many older accounts. Almost as if Sasquatch has toned down its act?

 

Yes, they get seen, but not for the durations that older encounter incidents claim. I mean watching a Sasquatch or two, or a group, for 15 minutes or half an hour or more just isn't happening. So are the older reports just lies? Or has the creature changes it's tactics- or wariness because there's so many more Humans around? There certainly does appear to be a shift in the TYPE of reports coming in. Less tangible in an odd sort of way maybe? It's not adding up IMHO.  

 

What if the older reports are more exciting because they've been embellished over the years?

[Old Dog]

On 2/10/2017 at 0:31 PM, TedSallis said:

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.

 

If we get back to the original question of has hoaxing made us TOO cynical, and if we refer to the text book definition of "cynical".

 

"believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity."

 

I would say that it has made us just cynical enough.  Not so jaded that we discard every thing that is put forward, but cynical enough to demand extraordinary proof of the findings.  What we are searching for is pretty fantastic in the pure nature of it, and we will need some fantastically good proof to prove it exists.  I hate to say it, but we may very well need a proof specimen for that proof.  

[Yuchi1]

IMO, another form of desensitization comes with BF groups that evolve to the point they feel compelled to keep the excitement/buzz going and begin to create a false narrative via discovery/report du jour behaviors. Such has been observed with a couple groups operating in this state leading to (IMO) a dramatic diminishment in their overall relevance to the subject matter. IMO, ego(s) and dollars seem to be the foundation for the undoing of such groups and with this being endemic within these type of groups, small wonder they seem to collapse under their own weight.