Bill Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 slicktrick: "There are many possible reasons, keep 'em coming. & any ideas on how to expose those who do hoax?" Well, the casual or amateur hoaxer who doesn't try very hard is usually easy to expose, when sophisticated analysis is applied. So these are an annoyance, sort of like polution. But the sophisticated hoaxer studies the methods of hoax detection and incorporates considerations into the plan to generate false positives based on what analysis methods are used.It's like the criminal who wants to commit the perfect crime, so he studies criminology investigation processes. That's probably who Grover Krantz is described as having some secret criteria for seperating fae from real footprints, but he wouldn't disclose the method for fear it would tell hoaxers how to do better fake prints (decribed in another thread). Actually our best prospect for hoax analysis is to look at older evidence and apply newer technology, so we are using a method the hoaxer could not know, anticipate, and compensate for. In that respect, that's one of the reasons the PGF is so ideal for new technology analysis. Roger could never have anticipated what we are inspecting today. So if he were faking that film, he should have been tripped up by now with film analysis. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share Posted August 27, 2011 excellent points bill. the krantz secret thread is what got me thinking about the hoaxers. its probably a good thing he didnt tell everyone. ive also thought that maybe meldrum shouldve kept the midtarsal break thing under wraps as well, but its too late for that. i dont know if secrets can be kept very well in this field. seems that the BF world is like a cheap tire, always a leak somewhere . when it comes to something in development the beans usually get spilled, but then again, the public developments seem to fall flat eventually. and i agree, patterson couldve never known the technology & depth of analysis that his film would be scrutinized by. it is probably a good idea, imo, to apply new tech to old evidence as you mention. any hoaxes could be exposed & good info possibly validated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PaulGT3 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I hate to see anyone get hurt but somewhere somehow the hoaxer is going to get hurt. Having done the research I have now on the subject, I really think hoaxing BF right now is risking your own life. There are enough Researchers (or HUNTERS) out there that someone is going to get shot. There is a myth already that someeone shot 2 bigfoots. What happens if the targets are a couple kids in a garbage bags? There is NO way in todays environment that I would let ANYONE I care about hoax a bigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 ive also thought that maybe meldrum should've kept the midtarsal break thing under wraps as well, but its too late for that. biggest blunder yet in all BF history IMHO Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 There is a consensus of what Sasquatch is, but for now, it's still just a model based on an opinion of what the data suggests, the data which wasn't arbitrarily excluded. John Green stated in April of 2011 that there may be other beings out there which are similar, but in his opinion they are not Sasquatch. Jason Erickson stated in April of 2011 there are multiple species of Sasquatch out there. Claiming an image or a video of a being that doesn't match the PGF entity / model, is a hoax, well this is a falsehood in itself because what you are actually stating that the only unrecognized hominid species alive today is the PGF type being. Thats an assumption which is impossible to verify. Implying "no other unknown, beings can exist because there is only one unknown being, that being the PGF entity / model of Sasquatch. This is in fact merely a belief being cast upon the public that in itself cannot be verified. And I wonder if this type of activity itself can be classified as a hoax, because in some cases to me it seems the exposers themselves appear to have a political or personal agenda. In fact these cases where unverifiable imagery being declared a hoax appears to fall under the the wikipedia definition of a hoax itself - that "A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment". Logic compels the open minded and intelligent thinker to ponder the premise which is the likely hood that if one relict Hominid can survive from prehistoric times, then so too can other, similar species. In my opinion clearly there is much imagery out there that doesn't match PGF, and it's very narrow minded to believe that all non conforming imagery are hoaxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I've actually written articles on the motivations behind hoaxing before. Coming from a forensic interview background, I've found that hoaxers seem to break down in one of four categories. 1- The Jokers - Hoaxers whom hoax for a laugh, a stunt or a joke. (Kids in gorilla costumes) 2- The Pychological Needy - Hoaxers whom hoax out of a need for attention, or whom may be lonely, or are in fantasy. (Remember the "Mr. Mike" Saga or The Bigfoot Ballyhoo) 3- Bigfootitis - People whom may see something legitimate and then from there, EVERYTHING that goes bump in the night is attributable to Bigfoot. Unintentional hoaxers. 4- The Profit Driven - Hoaxers whom hoax out of an attempt to monetarily attempt to capitalize on such actions. (Ivan Marx, Biscardi are good examples) I believe there is another type of hoaxer, besides the ones you mentioned. I think another type of hoaxer, is one that is certain that Bigfoot exists, but cannot find the proof to stimulate serious investigation, from mainstream science and society. They feel that their hoaxes are justified and if believed, will bring more professional and scientific minds into the fold. Since they already know Bigfoot exists, they figure their negative will ultimately create a positive. Scientists fudge data to further their agenda, so it's ok that Bigfooters do the same...right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 If it weren't for hoaxers none of us would be on this form right now...think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) excellent points bill. the krantz secret thread is what got me thinking about the hoaxers. its probably a good thing he didnt tell everyone. Grover did tell them all, but broke it up in two parts. One day while watching an old documentary he mentioned two of them that were not part of the five he touched on so many years later. PB hoaxed to raise money to be paid for his services for in the piece called 'Peter and the Sasquatch', P used the same photo of a footprint for three different alleged finds. One find was said to be of a 3000 print trackway ... no evidence of course, well that one print if you didin't know he gave different locations and lengths to it over the years to account for other alleged finds. Brisson is rumoured to have been paid by Erickson for being a part of the documentary, thus financial gain certainaly appears to have been a possible motive. A guy (RK) is always claiming to have contact with sasquatch over near the west side of BC. And sure enough ... he charges for people to come and see the area and hear about his alleged encounters. I for can proudly say that I have never changed for my time involving Sasquatch research. I also think that at least with two of the above people that wanting to appear to be more than what they are is a determining factor. But with some people they do not know when to stop. They claim so many encounters that their claims when combined do not even pass the laugh test. But they find an audience somehow and it seems to feed their desire to keep producing which in the end gets them caught eventually. Once that happens, they usually fade away, but as we have seen in recent times ... they can end up on a particular site that likes that kind of stuff because they think it will make their site more popular. And why do some folks embrace this nonsense? It seems the nuttier the tale - the more interesting people will find it. I mean ... look at the National Enquirer ... they run a story of a woman saying she gave birth to a Sasquatch and its right on the cover. The Brisson story again is another example. Despite the endless contradictions and story changes he's given over time ... people have posted as if the guy may be telling the truth. I guess it can only be from blind emotional faith compounded by a desire to see something big in this field to come along. The thing is, if it were a similar situation concerning a topic of nthose same people would easily see things for what they are. Hoaxes and the sensationalism that goes hand in hand. Edited August 28, 2011 by Bigfoothunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) If it weren't for hoaxers none of us would be on this form right now...think about it. I think about it frequently, and I find your viewpoint puzzling. Are you here merely to gain amusement from those of us that give some credence to the possibility the creature could exist? If so, I hope a few fleas find you, as I would find amusement in that. Edited August 28, 2011 by Incorrigible1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I've actually written articles on the motivations behind hoaxing before. Coming from a forensic interview background, I've found that hoaxers seem to break down in one of four categories. 1- The Jokers - Hoaxers whom hoax for a laugh, a stunt or a joke. (Kids in gorilla costumes) 2- The Pychological Needy - Hoaxers whom hoax out of a need for attention, or whom may be lonely, or are in fantasy. (Remember the "Mr. Mike" Saga or The Bigfoot Ballyhoo) 3- Bigfootitis - People whom may see something legitimate and then from there, EVERYTHING that goes bump in the night is attributable to Bigfoot. Unintentional hoaxers. 4- The Profit Driven - Hoaxers whom hoax out of an attempt to monetarily attempt to capitalize on such actions. (Ivan Marx, Biscardi are good examples) This list also describes most Bigfooters. I know a few that are 2, 3 and 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 P.E.T.A. says there is no bad press. So if a said hoaxer were to hoax and claim that it not their fault that name becomes instanly known compared to some honest researchers who if you don't know their websites or do a websearch you don't know who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Yeah, there's not many prank hoaxers anymore. Most hoaxers are determined on being a world-famous, multi-millionaire from their fake film. But fake films never make it that far and there dreams are crushed............... Edited March 23, 2012 by grayjay profanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Hoaxes are nothing new in the BF world...Iwhy do hoaxers hoax? what motivates them? Hi Slicktrick!! I personally think that hoaxers just want to make fun of others, they just want to show that some creature like Bigfoot is impossible, that it is a myth or a children tale and only "ingenuous" people believe on it...and it would be funny to "teach a lesson" to all this ingenous people all around the world...(who probably believe in Santa, Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny) The classical, is to mock the Patterson-Gimlin footage with a cheap gorilla costume and cry loud "oh my gosh..."holy thing" (but you notice they are over-acting)... It is possible that these people think that all the evidence about Bigfoot is just more hoaxes made by other people, fake footprints, fake videos, gorilla suits (and indeed, there is a lot of them), but they would not like to deal with scientific evidence. The legend of Bigfoot, according to them, is a collection of tall tales, created to scare children in campfires. I usually do not pay too much attention to videos...(some are cheap,but there are a few that show interesting "creatures" there), I like stories and sightings and campfire tales and traditional legends (which I find entertaining and interesting), but I know it is not easy to prove some of them...I think we have somehow to rely in solid evidence...like forensic footprint examination, hair and other evidence... Are these creatures just a legend? I think there is a good chance in the future to prove the existence of the Orang Pendek in Indonesia...if this creature is found, we would know that maybe there is some truth behind the legends of hairy creatures around the world... Greetings. K. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 hello, & to be honest,id forgotten about starting this thread....nice to see it revived. i do wonder if hoaxing hadnt been such an integral part of this phenomena perhaps it wouldnt be considered such a joke by so many. if you weed out the hoaxers, BS artists,& those seeking $ & attention youve still got a few accounts given by every day,common sense type folks with nothing to gain, reputations to lose..... & yet they still come forward the same kind of people a jury would convict based on their testimony in court......but mention BF & boom, suddenly they're a liar then. if you werent there, you dont know what they did or didnt see. those are the ones i think the hoaxers have hurt the most, & id like to see some sort of effort to flush any would be hoaxers out, if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) too late to edit, but above in ........."the same kind of people a jury would convict based on their testimony in court...." i meant to say "convict a criminal based on......"..... sorry, its been a long day,lol. maybe someone can work a little " mod magic mojo" for this? thanks Edited March 24, 2012 by slicktrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts