Matt Pruitt

The Truth About Elbe

231 posts in this topic

Well done, Matt!! Thank you! :)

Encore....encore...

That's the part that people will undoubtedly get the most upset with; your desire to deceive others.

You lied, plain and simple. You are continuing to lie. You are trying to insinuate that others are responsible, when you know exactly who is truly responsible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is 1 golden rule in Sasquatch research. "Thou shalt never hoax evidence". When such behavior is discovered it is a researchers duty to expose the hoax and the hoaxer. What Matt has done is simply once again confirmed that their are still researchers in this field who are dedicated to the truth no matter how unpopular that my be with certain folks. This sad situation also serves as a message to would be hoaxers. No matter how much effort you put into pulling the wool over the eyes of those trying to solve this on going mystery, you will most likely be found out in the end.

Thomas Steenburg

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have to come back tomorrow and plus Matt for bringing this information to light and Steenburg for his comments. Ridding ourselves of hoaxers is something we should all want. It's bad enough we have to deal with them outside the community, but from within - is even worse.

I hope this thread doesn't go away - and it should stand as a future warning to anyone who tries to hoax someone in this community.

Edited by Melissa
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt

Great stuff, hope you not going to stop the cleansing

Maybe when your finished in the US you could come down under, bring your broom

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had noticed early on that there were most likely skeptics here for no other reason than to be playing games. I mean ... If one thinks that fairies and leprechauns don't really exist, then why waste so much time hanging out on forums arguing with people who believe that such things do exist? Is it because they have a sincere belief that it is their life calling to save lost souls from believing in the existence of Sasquatch?? Is it because these people have little else to do???

So in light of this new information, I find myself realizing that some people appear so fanatical that they may resort to lies and deception if need be so to try to make their position appear to be the correct one.

I have a hard time seeing how they - themselves are not hoaxing and how that is any different than someone hoaxing evidence in the other direction so to suuport the existence of the Sasquatch. Now that's whacked!!!

It would be interesting to know if Tontar's IP address matches any other members here as I would think that pretending to be someone else would be a forum violation leading to being banned from the site.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

top notch sleuthing !

funny-high-five-picture.jpg

It's just heinous that a skeptic would do this. A skeptic. The fellas who are all about the truth and science and all that. That is just perfect.

makes perfect sense to me. ...The sceptic who would seek to discredit those who are genuinely trying to research the BF phenomena because he/she is convinced that the genuine researchers are wasting their time. ... must be a touch of attention seeking there too.

just when we all start to believe the perp', they come out and say, "look how silly you all are, you were easily led by your WANT for BFs to be real, and look how clever i am. P.S, you can buy the full story from me for half a million."

Edited by blueb4sunrise
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like a war on Radical Skepticism. These skeptics troll like agents to generally ridicule the subject. They also attempt to deceive and to divide and conquer. It is their never-ending and unreasonable levels of skepticism that defines them. They appeal to authority when it suits them and they start by grasping at straw man arguments.

They belittle and minimize the witness experience unless the witness is deemed credible by profession. And then, even then, that is not enough because they have not experienced it for themselves. You would think that a skeptic would have a keen level of discernment and that they would be able to contextualize, deduce and look for patterns to help reveal the truth so that their skepticism may be resolved. But they don't. They simply digest the unresolved and label it as unexplainable and file it away in the deep recesses of their brain. All the encounters, the stories, are all individual morsels to be selected and dissected. It is the way a defense attorney works to chisel away at a case. And sometimes it releases the innocent. At other times it frees the guilty by planting a seed of doubt that obscures the greater pattern for the jury to see.

The Radical Skeptic, the troll-type, never stops chiseling. They aren't searching for truth per se, they are just looking to destroy the belief and reasoning of others for their fulfillment.

As an aside, I offer this little parable:

A skeptic, an open-minded person, and a believer are traveling in a car on a remote highway. The road is straight with a prominent bow which makes the edge disappear into the horizon at a relatively short distance.

The believer, in the front passenger seat, recognizes the surroundings and begins to feel uneasy:

"I know this area. We just passed that blue farmhouse. My brother told me that he heard there was trouble with a sinkhole ahead. He said that one of his friends caught it at the last second and veered out of it."

The open-minded, driving: "Really? When was that?"

Believer: "Um, I think it was pretty recent."

Skeptic, in the back seat: "I think if that were the case the authorities would have blockaded the road."

Open-minded: "Maybe they don't know yet?"

Skeptic: "We'll be fine. They know about these sort of things. You would hear about something as dangerous as that. The news would send a helicopter to cover it."

Believer: "We should slow down just in case. I spoke to my brother before we left. He mentioned the route and that his friend almost had an accident last week."

Skeptic: "Maybe you misunderstood. Your brother could've meant that he was told about it last week? And that would suggest it could've happened at anytime. What you're giving me is hearsay. You're telling me what your brother told you about what happened to his friend."

Believer: "But it's my brother. I know him. I trust him. I know what I heard him say."

Open-minded: "Well I could slow it down a bit just to be safe."

Skeptic: "Ok. But why bother. We have zero evidence for this. We only have some cautionary tale. Sure, we are on a remote road but we cannot discount that this highway is used. The authorities would be notified if it were true. We also have to acknowledge that it doesn't make sense to have any sinkholes in this region. There is a certain set of criteria that must be checked off for it to occur - such as soluble bedrock, an under flow of water or salt deposits. We have nothing like that out here. It doesn't make sense and it isn't plausible."

Believer: "Well why would my brother mention it? What would be the purpose of being deceitful."

Skeptic: "I'm not saying he's lying. I'm just weighing the evidence given to me. And from what I know, it makes no sense for a sinkhole to be in this region. I cannot accept third or fourth party testimony if you will. The legitimacy of anecdotal testimony cannot measure up against what is known in geology. Also, we have to take into account that with such an egregious danger present, the traffic authority responsible would've acted by now to ensure the safety of the public. If by the off chance that such a peril does exist, it will be cordoned off."

Believer: "Aren't you making too many assumptions there? And appealing to authority?"

Skeptic: "They are not assumptions. It is educated analysis. You cannot take what people say at face value. You have to reason it out based upon what is known. What you are offering me cannot be proved. You only offer testimony of something I haven't seen nor heard of."

Believer: "But I'm telling you now..."

Skeptic: "Yes. But it is hearsay and I also have to consider the source."

Believer: "My brother?"

Skeptic: "I do not know your brother. We have never met. If I am to lend credence to this based on third party testimony versus what are known entities to me like the media and traffic authority, I have to side with the latter."

Believer: "But you know me. Doesn't that count for anything?"

Open-minded: "It should."

Skeptic: "I would like to say it does but I think I've sufficiently put enough doubt into what I deem to be a somewhat dubious claim of an implausible danger."

Believer: "Well it wouldn't hurt to slow down and proceed cautiously?"

Skeptic: "You're right. It wouldn't. But I am arguing that there is no need to proceed cautiously. I am speaking to the probability of a safe journey based on sound analysis of all the factors. You are wholly discounting that and basing it on your brother's interpretation of what was said to him. In light of what I am aware of and have experienced, I cannot reasonably accept a faith-based conclusion that there may be something perilous in the road."

Believer: "Well it's not faith-based..."

Skeptic: "It is because you are willing to believe. You are believing in your brother. You weren't there. You have no idea what was actually said. We have an unknown versus a known. I've offered sound scientific reasoning based on the geology of the area. I've also offered what are known practices for highway safety and the reporting of dangers to the public. By no means are these an absolute certainty. But I am not willing to dismiss an entire knowledge base nor established sound societal practices because of the statement of someone I do not know. It is like allowing the ocean to be dramatically displaced by a single drop of wa.."

The believer's head was turned just then. He was facing the skeptic listening intently and somewhat enjoying the conversation. As the skeptic's voice trailed off he saw how his eyes widened in shock. The believer's body dropped. His right shoulder was thrown violently forward. His head followed with a snap. In a slow moving blur he saw the open-minded driver thrust forward with his chin against the wheel. The whites of his teeth were showing through an intense grimace of pain and fear. His eyes were wide and white. He managed to turn to the believer in the final instant. Their shocked, pale exp<b></b>ressions dissolved into dark shadow. The believer's head followed through to break glass and all went to black.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Pruitt, you are the man. I had a high opinion of you as a person from reading a previous personal statement you once made, but I must say....your deductive skills and investagatory prowess is supremely impressive. I can not commend you enough for the work you have done and the honorable way with which you have handled the situation.

In my opinion, hoaxers robbing researchers of their valuable time and financial resources isn't any different than stealing from them, as a matter of fact it's worse. To have direct contact with well intentioned folks, and continue to lie and decieve them, and point the finger at others? How can I say this without violating forum guidelines? In my eyes anyone who would do something like this to someone would make the offender a huge steaming pile of human excrement. I can't say here how I would react if I were in these persons positions, but I assure you, it wouldn't be pleasant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had noticed early on that there were most likely skeptics here for no other reason than to be playing games. I mean ... If one thinks that fairies and leprechauns don't really exist, then why waste so much time hanging out on forums arguing with people who believe that such things do exist? Is it because they have a sincere belief that it is their life calling to save lost souls from believing in the existence of Sasquatch?? Is it because these people have little else to do???

This is it.

I believe these people are unstable, no doubt about it for me.

See my signature.

PS : Hats off Matt..;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Matt, I believe that all known hoaxers should be outed. If they have a reasonable explanation to defend or explain their actions lets hear it. But I just think there's no excuse.

Also, in reference to the kemosabe mentioned earlier, no connection to my use of mesabe as my screen name.

Any incidents I relate on here, are truth however unproven, but in some instances, whitnessed by several others. I have at one time been hoaxed by a couple of my relatives, and can testify the extreme feeling of letdown and distrust felt afterwards when they told me. I felt that a few hrs. of my time had just been yanked out of my life, and I had a hard time getting over the trust issues in my family. I think it was done good naturedly, but they let it go on too long, and outsiders became involved, causing further uneeded embarassement for me.

As for online skeptics, it's one thing to provide an alternative explanation or theory, or good natured debate. And another to continually hi-jack threads, mis-quoting, and providing weak arguments with hearsay information to back them up. Like KC and others above have asked, what keeps them here? It's almost pathological or sociopathic. I think the best defense is to ignore them completely from the get go, and not give them any glory in any response. If you've read enough of the threads, they stick out like a sore opposable thumb, and are easily identified. Not that some are in hiding. Many proudly wave the skeptic banner on a site devoted to information sharing. Must be a yin/yang Karma type thing... IDK

I think hoaxers should be banned, possibly with an explanation outing them for future reference. Because nowdays, all you need is a new computer and wifi and can probly set up another account. I'm not sure of all the technical details with the IP addr. etc

Sometimes you wonder what the underlying motive really is, it's not like anyone has been rubbing it in our faces when they pull off a hoax. (Well maybe Butchykids.) lol

Just my $.02, if indesputeable proof came soon, it would end some of the negativity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent work Matt, plussed.

Like everyone else I would like to see all hoaxers and liars outed and listed permanently for all to see.

However, do not confuse those who seek to lie and hoax with honest, intrigued truth-seekers who may label themselves skeptics by default since they have not yet been presented with irrefutable evidence by others, or been fortunate enough to witness irrefutable evidence first-hand.

For clarity, I do not label myself as a skeptic or proponent.

Edited by the parkie
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, do not confuse those who seek to lie and hoax with honest, intrigued truth-seekers who may label themselves skeptics by default since they have not yet been presented with irrefutable evidence by others, or been fortunate enough to witness irrefutable evidence first-hand.

For clarity, I do not label myself as a skeptic or proponent.

I agree parkie. I took the above posts as talking about "radical skeptics" and scoftics.

I think it is healthy to remain skeptical. You can (and should) be skiptical of new evidence, even as a believer. I have had no personal experience (except one possible time) but I think there is enough evidence to support the possibility. Yet I remain skeptical of reportings etc.

Back on topic - nice job Matt. Thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mesabe wrote:

As for online skeptics, it's one thing to provide an alternative explanation or theory, or good natured debate. And another to continually hi-jack threads, mis-quoting, and providing weak arguments with hearsay information to back them up. Like KC and others above have asked, what keeps them here? It's almost pathological or sociopathic.

I think the best defense is to ignore them completely from the get go, and not give them any glory in any response. If you've read enough of the threads, they stick out like a sore opposable thumb, and are easily identified.

I agree completely, mesabe... :) I think the discussion threads/analysis of the PGF would be better-off if Tontar, and one or two other "skeptics", were put on 'Ignore' by the Bigfoot proponents.

As it stands now...there is a lot of good analysis buried within many pages of Tontar's and kitakaze's posts, along with the responses they've gotten.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites