- Dec 9, 2009
- Reaction score
- Lincolnshire UK
That may be why you are not a hoaxer.Anyone thought about what the point would be in saying you took the photo from a particular location when in fact you were somewhere else? Isn't that setting yourself up to be found out?
If I were a hoaxer and I had taken the photo, I might be inclined to tell the truth about being in a holiday let as opposed to in a car in a lay-by. The best lies being those that contain some truth.
The best liars believe what they are saying at the time that they are saying it, even if they are capable of believing the exact opposite tomorrow.
The best carefully constructed lies (hoaxes, frauds, political arguments) contain checkable truths. The half hearted sceptic identifies that those few facts check out, and is inclined to believe the whole story. The very best carefully constructed lies (especially political ones) are tailored to exploit the audience's preconceptions. If you are already anxious about immigration, you may be more inclined to believe a fake news story about immigrants committing crimes, for example.
However, a recreational hoaxer has mixed motives, one of which is to attract attention. For some people, any attention is better than none. If your story is challenged, you act upset; if you act upset, someone will console you. Result!
If your story is accepted, rather than let the attention die down, you might add to it. If the additions are challenged, you act upset, and again, someone somewhere will console you. Result!
It is a rare hoaxer who can restrain themselves from revisiting and reviving the hoax and adding to it. For example, in the well known case of the Cottingley fairy photographs, one sister confessed to it being a hoax; the other maintained that she had seen fairies; a further photograph was put forward as "evidence" that, despite some of the photos being faked, they really had seen fairies. It's hard to let go of attention, or to admit when you've been caught out.
I have just gone back and read the OP's statement on this thread. It reads like a scene from a bad B movie. Both slightly tipsy in the car, girlfriend sees the monster first, boyfriend initially sceptical but finally sees the monster which is massive... and so on.
"I looked out of the cottage window and saw a tiny unidentified blob in the distance," is not an exciting scene to describe.
A common "mistake" for hoaxers and fraudsters to make is to have a very detailed and dramatic account of the central part of the story, but without thinking through all that happened before and after. They do the exciting bit — tell an engaging anecdote — but not the difficult bit: working out all the details.