would it be good enough for you?

[the13bats]

Im curious my OCD is pulling at something in my over tired brain and i want to make up a anecdote and then the question is would it prove the case to you, this isnt a believers vs skeptics thing, just want to see how others think.

Lets say fred presents pictures or even a video of an alleged  crypto creature, ( this can apply to ghosts, aliens, etc, im just using crypto ) others tack onto it and it gets where several known names in the field are claiming this time we have the real deal.

Then joey comes forward he says thats my handiwork, i didnt put that out there, it wasnt meant to fool anyone i wasnt doing it as a hoax and that's why im telling you its my work because it wasnt meant to trick anyone.

Now, lets say it doesnt really look like other work joey has done, and he didnt provide any pictures of him making it, or even anything that actually provides any provenance he did make it, and he shuts up on any additional infomation  just a fellow claiming joey gave him the pictures to post and would provide more which never come around,

Since joey took claim interest dies,

My question is would you be good with that explanation, not saying you go fully the other way but was that enough to go along that joey really did make it?

And this is a hodge podge of stuff thats out there if parts seems familiar

Thanks

 

 

[Myles]

56 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Im curious my OCD is pulling at something in my over tired brain and i want to make up a anecdote and then the question is would it prove the case to you, this isnt a believers vs skeptics thing, just want to see how others think.

Lets say fred presents pictures or even a video of an alleged  crypto creature, ( this can apply to ghosts, aliens, etc, im just using crypto ) others tack onto it and it gets where several known names in the field are claiming this time we have the real deal.

Then joey comes forward he says thats my handiwork, i didnt put that out there, it wasnt meant to fool anyone i wasnt doing it as a hoax and that's why im telling you its my work because it wasnt meant to trick anyone.

Now, lets say it doesnt really look like other work joey has done, and he didnt provide any pictures of him making it, or even anything that actually provides any provenance he did make it, and he shuts up on any additional infomation  just a fellow claiming joey gave him the pictures to post and would provide more which never come around,

Since joey took claim interest dies,

My question is would you be good with that explanation, not saying you go fully the other way but was that enough to go along that joey really did make it?

And this is a hodge podge of stuff thats out there if parts seems familiar

Thanks

 

 

If the pic or video was all that there was, I think Joey's claim would allow it to die off.   Now if other physical evidence was also found, his story may not hold up.   You mentioned that - "several known names in the field are claiming this time we have the real deal".  The issue with that is that it is in their best interest to support all claims until they are proven to be a hoax.   Now if there is enough evidence for several scientists to be on board, it would be different.  Of course it also depends on the cryptid.  For bigfoot, a photo would be questioned more than a clear trail cam pic of a thylacine.    

[+OverSword]

Can Joey prove it was his work?  I mean people confess to murders they didn't do for who knows what reason, right?

[Robotic Jew]

I would look into Joey's history if I had the means to do so. 

From the jump I'd be less likely to believe "known names in the field" because their credibility is well known at this point.

But with anything like a cryptid or an alien, I would need more evidence than just a single photo or video to put into to any serious consideration. 

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, the13bats said:

Im curious my OCD is pulling at something in my over tired brain and i want to make up a anecdote and then the question is would it prove the case to you, this isnt a believers vs skeptics thing, just want to see how others think.

Lets say fred presents pictures or even a video of an alleged  crypto creature, ( this can apply to ghosts, aliens, etc, im just using crypto ) others tack onto it and it gets where several known names in the field are claiming this time we have the real deal.

Then joey comes forward he says thats my handiwork, i didnt put that out there, it wasnt meant to fool anyone i wasnt doing it as a hoax and that's why im telling you its my work because it wasnt meant to trick anyone.

Now, lets say it doesnt really look like other work joey has done, and he didnt provide any pictures of him making it, or even anything that actually provides any provenance he did make it, and he shuts up on any additional infomation  just a fellow claiming joey gave him the pictures to post and would provide more which never come around,

Since joey took claim interest dies,

My question is would you be good with that explanation, not saying you go fully the other way but was that enough to go along that joey really did make it?

And this is a hodge podge of stuff thats out there if parts seems familiar

Thanks

 

 

My first point is that I don't see any crypto/paranormal/alien photo/video being hailed as the unanimous decisive proof in expert nor armature opinion. It will be controversial. It is essentially never impossible to fake any photo/video with today's technology. 

Now every video/photo nowadays is going to have detractors. There will be the Joey types as in the above example and what they say must be considered. Any detractors will put the photo/video in controversial.

Serious consideration from all sides is always necessary. If the first detractor or hoax claimant is enough to doom the photo/video then you are not doing your proper mental homework. 100% of the crypto/paranormal/alien things I consider highly likely to be true have very vocal and vehement critics.

Another point is to be skeptical of claims. And that includes looking skeptically at the claims of both proponents and detractors.

In the end a method approximate to the Papameter is the way to go. It considers all proponents and detractors and all arguments and our lifetime of experience observing people and the world and judges likelihood (not certainty). 

So in the above example I would give Fred, Joey and anyone else with a claim/opinion my consideration. So in the end the Papameter seems unlikely to give a zero or 100% reading. But everything learned is added to the cumulative wisdom stored in our mind's database.

I don't really like the very question 'would it be good enough for you?'. It seems to imply we come to yes/no decisions as opposed to only judging overall likelihood.

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by papageorge1

[rashore]

Joey isn't able to provide proof they made the photo/video? Just their word they did so without other trace evidence of quality/type of work to indicate Joey did it? I'd be questioning that one. As the originator, they should have source data they can provide. And be able to replicate themselves. If the original claim of ownership keeps getting post moving to "can't find it", "oops, must have been a one off and I can't remember how I did it" sorts of stories... Joey as the explanation for the photo/video would go down the list for viability for me. 

Fred as a something kind of isn't for me- I have indeed seen more than once of someone being a presenter, and not having much association past that. Sometimes with the originator showing up in thread. Don't happen often, but it has on occasion. More common is article submittal with almost zero originator after, or bot and sometimes the originator joins the thread. I'm not sure if we have gotten someone lying about being the creator and trying to claim credit for something they didn't do around here like Joey though. 

What are the known names saying? What fields are they known in? Trying to explain, debunk, prove something? Are they trying to do something in relation to the Joey story, or on their own potential explanations, other?

[micahc]

in this world of photoshop, and other digital tricks, i need to see the animal myself either live in front of me, or in a cage filmed by many reliable news outlets.  In the case of a ghost i need them in my den, and even then i would just doubt my sanity.

[the13bats]

Many thanks all and allow me to apologize for being very over tired ( i dont feel it at the time ) when i posted it and i made things a bit vauge or convoluted,

I wasnt asking is the subject real or fake but rather would joeys admission he made it ( fake ) be enough to convince you he really did make it,

To try to clarify , joey calling it his work was admitting or claiming that it wasnt real, like if i tape a couple plates together toss it in the air and snap a pic, i made that ufo, but i only come out through fred that i made it and how the pictures of it came to be out there is vauge,

So i claim i made it but i provide no pictures of me with it, no other pics of it just me saying i did, so i realize if you believe i made it then in turn you believe its fake but its not the fake part im interested in im interested in is that enough to prove i did make it, for me its not, while i did think it wasnt real i also doubt joeys claims he did it,

As i said joey "could" have made it has the talent the skills but its not like any of his other work, the feel and style isnt there.

Let me do another hypothetical, and use a known video,

Most have seen the skinny bob alien video, if not google it up, at this point i think most believe its fake,  to this day no one has taken credit for making it, cgi a prop, a mix whatever, no one takes credit,

Now if a joey popped up said yep i made that, its my work i tossed it together it wasnt meant to get out there as a hoax sorry bout that, bye,

No other proof he made it would you believe with just that joey did make skinny bob?

My hang up i guess i call it is where i believe a case is fake, a prop but i also do not believe the story as its being presented by the person claiming to have made it,  i cant come up with a logical reason for trying to take claim yet not as easy as it would be to prove your claim, its like the person wants to keep mystery there,

Like when the santili guys admitted alien autopsy was hoaxed by them and when asked for pictures of the make up guy building it or the prop itself, they say oh we distroyed all that, but here hes making another which doesnt really look like the original,

Another is i feel the patterson film is a man in a bad fur suit yet i also think morris is full of bull that he made the suit, the one he made to prove his claimed didnt wash, yet some said yep, morris made it case closed, 

[Resume]

A wise man proportions his belief to the quality of the evidence for the claim, as Home, Herm, Humus, someone like that once said.  Quality evidence for something like a thylacine might be a contemporary HD photo/video, whereas the same for say a bigfoot, would be a bigfoot.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Resume

[the13bats]

37 minutes ago, Resume said:

A wise man proportions his belief to the quality of the evidence for the claim, as Home, Herm, Humus, someone like that once said.  Quality evidence for something like a thylacine might be a contemporary HD photo/video, whereas the same for say a bigfoot, would be a bigfoot.

Okay, that the other direction that my stumbles,

Lets say i make a new thread,

"My dad made the patterson bigfoot costume"

And i post a brief telling how my dad a taxidermist made the fur suit for patterson so just wanted to let you all know this.

And i end it there, i dont give any extra info, while dad was a taxidermist he never made such a costume, i post no pictures or any evidence only my above statement, would you believe it?

I wouldnt, while i believe the pgf is fake i wouldnt believe the fictional example i just posted, like i dont believe morris made the suit or Bob Heironimus was the guy in it, sure bob walks just like the subject in the film but i need more than just him saying that he is the actor and he has zip.

[Myles]

13 hours ago, the13bats said:

 

I wouldnt, while i believe the pgf is fake i wouldnt believe the fictional example i just posted, like i dont believe morris made the suit or Bob Heironimus was the guy in it, sure bob walks just like the subject in the film but i need more than just him saying that he is the actor and he has zip.

Since Bob was involved with the filming, I give his word a little more credibility than a random persons claim.  

[Alchopwn]

On 6/29/2020 at 9:22 PM, the13bats said:

Im curious my OCD is pulling at something in my over tired brain and i want to make up a anecdote and then the question is would it prove the case to you, this isnt a believers vs skeptics thing, just want to see how others think.

Lets say fred presents pictures or even a video of an alleged  crypto creature, ( this can apply to ghosts, aliens, etc, im just using crypto ) others tack onto it and it gets where several known names in the field are claiming this time we have the real deal.

Then joey comes forward he says thats my handiwork, i didnt put that out there, it wasnt meant to fool anyone i wasnt doing it as a hoax and that's why im telling you its my work because it wasnt meant to trick anyone.

Now, lets say it doesnt really look like other work joey has done, and he didnt provide any pictures of him making it, or even anything that actually provides any provenance he did make it, and he shuts up on any additional infomation  just a fellow claiming joey gave him the pictures to post and would provide more which never come around,

Since joey took claim interest dies,

My question is would you be good with that explanation, not saying you go fully the other way but was that enough to go along that joey really did make it?

And this is a hodge podge of stuff thats out there if parts seems familiar

Thanks

So we have here a "Case of the Dubious Debunker".  A person claims ownership of material they claim is being used to perpetrate a hoax without their permission, but they cannot prove ownership of the material they claim.  This sounds a bit like what happened with the people who claimed they had made all the crop circles.  On closer inspection, they couldn't provide evidence for any but a few crop circles, and nor could they duplicate the more intricate patterns, or avoid leaving tracks into or out of the fields.  By claiming to have performed the hoax, they debunk the phenomenon to the casual skeptic, but the more informed skeptic researches and discovers that their "debunking" is inadequate, and a smoke screen, and that suggests that there is an unknown agenda at work.  Now however the "waters are muddied" and the skeptic can no longer be certain of the veracity of their information, and whatever the truth is, it is now lost.

This is the underlying tactic in Putin's Firehose of Falsehood tactic of internet disinformation.  The tactic means that if you "muddy the water", you invariably turn the question "What is the truth?" into a polarizing argument where vested interests of idiots flame war each other, while the truth is increasingly obscured and lost.  This is desirable to the person who knows the truth and wants to obscure the truth.  Knowing what is true is power, and when you take away access to the truth from people, or even make them solidly doubt the truth, you disempower them. 

As an example for teaching purposes, let's look at the US response to Covid-19.  The population has been taught to feel threatened by science, and to consider even life saving vaccines to be some sort of evil conspiracy.  Religious groups have been very threatened by people learning about science and trusting science over religion, so they have engaged in a campaign of disinformation and actively promoted an anti-intellectual agenda to anyone who will listen.  This has been added to by fringe religions like the rotting remains of the New Age movement, who have been ardent peddlers of pseudo-science.  Then you have paranoid people, or those with an axe to grind against the government, who start in with conspiracy theories.  Suddenly sound medical advice becomes a matter of political opinion rather than a pursuit of best medical practice and every high-school dropout has a louder opinion on the matter of health than actual doctors specializing in the relevant field.

That is the sort of powerful disinformation that kills a lot of people.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Alchopwn

[Resume]

21 hours ago, the13bats said:

Okay, that the other direction that my stumbles,

Lets say i make a new thread,

"My dad made the patterson bigfoot costume"

And i post a brief telling how my dad a taxidermist made the fur suit for patterson so just wanted to let you all know this.

And i end it there, i dont give any extra info, while dad was a taxidermist he never made such a costume, i post no pictures or any evidence only my above statement, would you believe it?

I wouldnt, while i believe the pgf is fake i wouldnt believe the fictional example i just posted, like i dont believe morris made the suit or Bob Heironimus was the guy in it, sure bob walks just like the subject in the film but i need more than just him saying that he is the actor and he has zip.

You have related an anecdote, and anecdotes are poor evidence. Evidence for the pattysuit would be the pattysuit, which in all likelihood is long gone.

[Carnoferox]

Short answer: hell no.

If a claimed hoaxer can't conclusively prove that they did it, or someone else can't prove that the claimed hoaxer did it, there's no reason to take their claim seriously. It's why I don't believe that Christian Spurling hoaxed the surgeon's photo or that Bob Heironimus hoaxed the Patterson-Gimlin film. I still think these are hoaxes, but none of the claimed hoaxers have ever provided conclusive evidence that they were responsible.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Carnoferox

[Carnoferox]

Tying into this I think too many people are way too quick to cry "hoax", "photoshop", and "CGI", or put together some nonsensical explanation without thought. A lot of times there's a more mundane explanation, like a misidentified animal.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Carnoferox

[jethrofloyd]

On 6/29/2020 at 11:28 PM, the13bats said:

Another is i feel the patterson film is a man in a bad fur suit yet i also think morris is full of bull that he made the suit, the one he made to prove his claimed didnt wash, yet some said yep, morris made it case closed, 

Bob Gimlin 2018: '' Film 'speaks for itself..''

Bob Gimlin 2019. '' I know what I saw ''...

As 'Myles' put it nice: Since Bob was involved with the filming, I give his word a little more credibility than a random persons claim.

[MrBene]

An hoax is an hoax. The author is irrelevant. Now, if we want to dig deeper to try to discover some sort of agenda, well, not in my lunch break. 

[the13bats]

Thanks all, been having a rough hard time since i posted this thead, sometimes i cuddle my inner demons lately weve been fighting...

alchopwn and carnoferox seems to have peeled away my babbling and gotten to my question and thoughts,

I was trying to wax about cases being debunked but no real proof to the debunking, a few examples, not to highjack the subject to whether these are real or hoax but since i and most consider them hoax i am using them,

Cottingley Fairies, i do not believe the story the cousins told in the 80s that the idea and initial work was theirs, nope, the ones dad was a photo bug even had a darkroom in his home im guessing pretty darn rare back then, but i believe dad was helping and involved right from the start, why the girls dont credit his involvment more i dont have a clue, it was past the time of trying to sell the sweet innocent kids angle,

Chris walas , his bigfoot suit, fooled matt moneymaker, i guess the best i can piece this mess together walas releases a few blurry stills from a video and some vauge babbling caption to the effect that they see them a lot but being hes a talented special effects artist no one will believe him, and of course that blew up,

One forum or another moneymaker posts a still saying its the real deal and walas posts hes sorry for being  elusive but the pix were from his personal project, a bigfoot film inspired by pattersons patty calling his bf wally, saying his stepson was in the suit, that he threw together from scrapes, which was obviously not the case, it was a well made suit,

He also gets way too dramatically upset over moneymaker using his pics saying to the effect he will punch mm in the mouth if he sees him, no kidding, its in a long thread on bigfootlunchclub,

One of walas minions makes promises to release more pix or video, never happens, and we have actually zero proof the work was done by walas besides him taking credit,  walas released a very campy apes of Frankenstein movie trailer ( on youtube ) that does show the man has amazing talent,

Patterson flim is a great example of one that when i consider the full case its a hoax however, no one has even come close to reproducing the suit, countless documentries have poured tall $$$ into trying but it always comes up short, one gleaming reason, none use the same camera or the same wrong speed setting at a good guess at distance and angle and how fast the actor and patterson was moving, it would make a difference,

to me known costumes like jack links or harry henderson look far better than patty, which just looks like an old crap 50s ape suit to me, reminds me of the lost in space or Gilligan island suits. It was great when phil morris claimed he made the the suit then the one he made to prove it looked less like patty than my 39.99 halloween store ape suit, 

I give less credibility to bob gimlin because he has the most reason to ahem, lie, his bestest buddy is terminal and has nothing and is trying to give his family something, i would do it, a lot of folks would, i recall gimlin saying his wife had considered divorce over his involvment with the film, either that was true in which case he was in a very bad marrage or he said it for dramatic effect which hurts his integrity with me to embellish.

It still goes back to the fact the pgf has never been proven a hoax, no suit, no confession with proof, i used to take a light hearted poke at meldrums obsessive beliefs in the pgf i would suggest that widow patterson could show him the blooper reels while gimlin danced the hoky pooky in the suit and meldrum would still beat his fist the film is a real creature,

Pgf is a great example no one has definitively proven real or hoax, its a race with udertakers will someone involved come out on their so called deadbed or take it with them only time will tell, but its very intriguing to me some folks base their beliefs on that one film.

 

Christian Spurling,

Even when i was young i saw that water doesnt scale down, when a flood happens to a miniature town i could always see it instantly, i would get a fairly accurate mental gauge the size of the props,

I never thought the so called  surgeons photo was anything except a toy prop my being into RC all my life and working on many watercraft  i took issues with it being a toy sub with so much up top and no mention of counter weights,  i have no clue what a person started with but if it was a clockwerk toy of the say show me that toy, 

I personally believe its far less high tech than a reworked toy but rather a cut out or even possible sock puppet,  one if care was taken to produce the same grainy poor image either would work just as well,

And how about this, what did sandra mansi actual photograph? I believe she knew darn well it wasnt a creature and from my research i believe they had great fun with the fame, $$$ etc from it, its another that hasnt been proven either way.

[Don Caesar]

Photographs and footage will never be enough proof for me. Far too easy to fake these things. I would have be there to see whatever it was with my own eyes - even then, I wouldn't believe it.