Comments on: Hoax Revealed: Luxembourg Bigfoot Videos

By: skeptik

skeptik — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:02:04 +0000

I don’t see that these videos did any damage at all. Who took it seriously in the beginning except the fanatics, and the turn-to-dime fortean magazine industry?
You’d have to be ill-educated to believe Luxembourg can sustain such creatures without getting noticed. Without stories, rumors or fairytales.

As for laws; there _are_ laws (at least in Europe) against forgery, but following suit depends on financial losses or harm proven to be a consequence of the hoax. This, however, is nothing but a prank.
Has anyone seen the film “The Legend of Bigfoot” by the way?

By: Point Radix

Point Radix — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:07:55 +0000

Very well said Tony (nzcryptozoologist), I agree 100%. With regard to the idea of habitable planets, just look at what was recently happening with the latest NASA footage, allegedly showing a “bigfoot” image on Mars. That sort of inter-galactic cryptid nonsense will simply provide fuel for anybody opposed to establishing cryptozoology as a “serious science”…But the fact remains that as long as new species are being found anywhere (on Earth) as is happening all the time, there will always be a credible place for these discussions!!!

By: Benjamin Radford

Benjamin Radford — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:15:24 +0000

Regardless of how many people did or didn’t believe the video was real, it’s yet one more in an ever-growing list of Bigfoot films and videos shown to be hoaxes.

And the list of Bigfoot films and videos proven to be real? ZERO.

Maybe next year…

By: DWA

DWA — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:57:25 +0000

windigo:

It surprises me that proponents can keep their tempers in the face of what they have to put up with.

(I don’t keep mine very well. Maybe I’m filling a niche here. )

The discussion might get somewhere if skeptics were to finally recognize that they are advancing a thesis in a scientific debate – and that when you do that, you are obliged to back it up with evidence, or you can’t call what you are doing science. That single point – that skeptics think it’s OK to propound cloud-cuckoo “mundane” explanations, while holding proponents alone to being serious – well, that ain’t kosher, and is responsible for every hair of mine they put out of place. Proponents KNOW they have to put forward the evidence; this they have done admirably. But if you are saying it’s ALL a fake, or some sort of other false positive, which you are if you are skeptical of a cryptid’s existence, you DO have to explain how the heck you have come up with that (hint: the evidence seems to point strongly to your being wrong), and simply repeating proponents-must-prove (they all but have; where’s science when you need it?) simply does not wash.

I keep hearing that proponents have gotten nowhere – when all the evidence I see points to who really hasn’t found anything new to say in 50 years.

Soldier on.

By: windigo

windigo — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:00:45 +0000

DWA, I thank you for your perspective, and you make some wonderful points. I suppose that my feelings are driven by the superficial approach that the scientific community approaches the subject. I have been investigating Sasquatch for quite some time and I have yet to meet a skeptic using empirical methods who actually respects and the phenomenom, while understanding that all is not known to the scientific world. I know I should be used to it, but sometimes it helps to vent my frustrations.

By: nzcryptozoologist

nzcryptozoologist — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:23:43 +0000

This sort of nonsense is the sort of thing that casts serious doubt on the scientific value and credibility of anyone serious about cryptozoological research.
In all honesty its hard these days with modern technology to tell fake from real.
There could be alot of evidence passed over as fake that may be genuine.
Surely this sort of thing must be illegal, misrepresenting to the public, scamming or something.
I just get real steamed at this sort of thing as this casts doubts on getting cryptozoology classified as a “real science” by the scientific establishment like serious hard working researchers like Loren, Jon Downs, Karl Shuker, myself and I could go on with many other names.
Yes the hoaxes are good for a laugh but what would happen to scientific credibility if they started to suddenly announce there were habitable planets all through the solar system we just hadn’t spotted them, then to turn round and say “na sorry just kidding” the credibility of astronomy as a science would be out the window.

Sheeeesh
Thats my little blood boil tantrum over with.
I just wish hoaxers would realise they are doin more damage than good.

Tony Lucas
NZ Cryptozoologist

By: gridbug

gridbug — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:26:45 +0000

THE WORST. This makes the “Ivan Marx Sasquatch woodland frolic” nonsense look like top shelf gold! And I mean that lovingly.

By: sausage1

sausage1 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:39:58 +0000

The first time I heard of and saw the ‘Luxembourg’ video I assumed that Luxembourg was a township in Montana or a county in California, US geography not being my strong suit. Well, there are loads of Bedfords, Norfolks, Hamburgs, Paris etc all over the States.

The actual country Luxembourg is about the size of my window box, although admittedly it is more picturesque. I believe I already told you about my parents’ meeting with the Luxembourg Olympic marathon hopeful on a previous blog. I know you should never say never, but come on …bigfoot in Luxembourg???

And next… Japanese tourist films sea serpent in Trafalgar Square fountain -London police baffled!

By: Point Radix

Point Radix — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:09:42 +0000

The hoax is obvious within the first minute. Any large cryptid species surviving in a place like Luxembourg would need to be much more aware of its surroundings, or it would not remain ‘cryptid’ for long. With the amount of noise he is making while filming it (obvious rustling of leaves heard in the first scene) you would think that the bigfoot would at least turn around to see what’s there. But instead it remains with its back turned a few feet away and allows itself to be filmed for so long by a noisy pursuer…conveniently with enough leaves slightly concealing it…

There really is no need to “reveal” this footage as a hoax, the “bigfoot” does a good enough job of doing so itself.

By: DWA

DWA — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:47:48 +0000

windigo:

See, that shouldn’t matter to any of us, should it?

The so-called skeptical community are:

1) rubes when it comes to the evidence;
2) ineffective at arguing their case;
3) not worth paying much attention to.

True Believers – including the kind of folks who would get taken in by stuff like this, and the kind of people who say the sasquatch is phony, but can’t give a decent reason why they think that – aren’t the kind of people any of us should be concerned with. They think what they want. What should it matter to us?

Calm exposition of evidence – such as is being practiced by such as the TBRC – is what will win the day here. The so-called skeptical community continually worries the same five or so pieces of evidence. Doesn’t this say something for the strength of that evidence, that no one’s been able to debunk it in the decades it’s been lying there? (Nod.)

The skeptical case against is pretty much not there. But they always will be. Better not to be concerned with them, I say. Donkeys bray, whether they get fed or not, right?