Guest Posted September 28, 2012 Share Posted September 28, 2012 Nope. My simple example suggested only a few potential hoaxers (yet to be proven conclusively) were the genesis of a much more massive "movement". That didn't mean an army of hoaxers, if you read it carefully you see it refers to new sightings, reports, believers, and so on. I did not say it produced an army of hoaxers, so there's nothing remarkable or contradictory to it at all. Except for all of it. On the one hand you posit that BF is the product of a small number of isolated hoaxers who "spawned a movement". You explicitly ignore the size and organization required FOR that alleged movement to be successful in terms of knowledge, skill, communication and execution. One half of your position "has it's cake" and the other half is "trying to eat it". Too bad you got caught, innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 So what's most likely Army of Hoaxers or Army of Bigfoots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 It is in error that we make up a shopping cart full of natural reasons, stringing them together, relying on each other, in order to create and present results similar to that which has been found and attributed to an undiscovered cause. The more numerous the natural reasons it takes to explain something, the less likely it is true. The least amount of natural explanations it takes the more likely it is true. Nature tends to simplify its processes to the least amount of steps required or needed to work. This statement helps explain why cons and crimes must be so complicated to exist for any lenght of time without the truth being found out. As I said earlier in this thread "...the most probable/simplest explanation should be used until proof is brought forward to prove that a less likely/more complicated explanation is the cause. It doesn't preclude other options, it just simplifies the equation." The most simple explanation is that the tracks are human or faked by humans. We know humans exist, we know that humans have feet that fall into the size range of the tracks (unless you believe Mulder's nonsense that the range of human foot length spans 10 15/64" - 10 5/8"), and we know that humans have hoaxed tracks previously. Nature/bigfoot believers don't have to come up with any new processes to explain the tracks - they can be adequately explained by humans/human hoaxers w/o resorting to bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Well it's starting to look not so good for the latest trackway find....the shoe might be on the other foot as far as the OPs proposition...,, Rare, Medium or Well Done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 What exactly was the OP's proposition? All I recall was that OP and others were still in the investigation phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 What exactly was the OP's proposition? All I recall was that OP and others were still in the investigation phase. "If it is so easy to make trackway hoaxes, then let's have some of these skeptics "step up" and do a trackway to show us all how it is done. Maybe go the whole nine yards and do it as a real time hoax, have "believing" bigfooters make the discovery and submit casts to Meldrum and show how easy it is to put one over on the bigfoot research community. Until then I give as much weight to the "it could be a hoax" argument of these trackways as any other wild claim of bigfoot hiding in blurry pixels." I think Cervelo is saying mission accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 (edited) RS, Skeptical Pareidolia And Trackway Evidence Edited September 29, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 29, 2012 Share Posted September 29, 2012 Oh my bad. You meant OP as in Original Poster. I read it as Olympic Project. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 So....Mulder, BFS, DDA what is Occam's razor and how should it be applied to trackways like Elbe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Occam's Razor seems rather sharp in this trackway investigation, don't you think? The developing consensus among the investigators and this forum seems to be leading toward "confirms on" a hoax: suspect tracks, suspect stride lengths, and suspect e-mail notification of the existence of the tracks. I'm sure there is a lot more we don't yet know, but I've been waiting for additional information from the beginning of the trackway thread, specifically wanting to see an overview video of the entire trackway and close up images of each of the 200+ tracks. Now it seems that much of that evidence may be moot once the investigation into the hoax is completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I've always thought it was sharp in regards to this trackway and believe it should probably be honed even further prior to investigating the next. My thoughts since I joined have always been to skeptically investigate any evidence that comes forward and throw out that which doesn't meet the standard so that bad data doesn't become the basis of future theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 "If it is so easy to make trackway hoaxes, then let's have some of these skeptics "step up" and do a trackway to show us all how it is done. Maybe go the whole nine yards and do it as a real time hoax, have "believing" bigfooters make the discovery and submit casts to Meldrum and show how easy it is to put one over on the bigfoot research community. Until then I give as much weight to the "it could be a hoax" argument of these trackways as any other wild claim of bigfoot hiding in blurry pixels." I think Cervelo is saying mission accomplished. Disagree, this 'hoax' lasted all but what, 5 days? And appears to have been easily debunked by the researchers on site. I think it goes to show that hoaxing a trackway is indeed difficult as nothing was 'put over' the BF community, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter as it seems to me that most hoaxes only last a day or two on here when sharp eyed forum members spot something fishy. My point about this and any other evidence brought forward is to assume it's a hoax or misidentification whenever it's not witnessed (preferably with clear footage). Making claims of "proof" prior to investigating is bad business if your credibility is at stake and could just as easily have been avoided by not making any claims. Investigation would have revealed the same end result and credibility would have been built rather than lost IMHO. If we conducted an AAR (after action report) on this incident the topic shouldn't be who was responsible for the hoaxing. It should be what mistakes did we make? What did we learn from those mistakes? What could we have done differently? What should we do differently next time to provide the best outcome? Those that truly believe this was a success will probably perform at the same level next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter as it seems to me that most hoaxes only last a day or two on here when sharp eyed forum members spot something fishy. My point about this and any other evidence brought forward is to assume it's a hoax or misidentification whenever it's not witnessed (preferably with clear footage). Making claims of "proof" prior to investigating is bad business if your credibility is at stake and could just as easily have been avoided by not making any claims. Investigation would have revealed the same end result and credibility would have been built rather than lost IMHO. If we conducted an AAR (after action report) on this incident the topic shouldn't be who was responsible for the hoaxing. It should be what mistakes did we make? What did we learn from those mistakes? What could we have done differently? What should we do differently next time to provide the best outcome? Those that truly believe this was a success will probably perform at the same level next time. Hi Bill: I can't say as I disagree with everything above. Just a few points that will spin it back into an Occam's Razor discussion. My bolding above to show where I think you are right on. Furthermore, I kind of looked at the whole thing from more of a 'what does the majority of the researchers think?', rather than taking what the initial vocalizing party claims. I thought that the 'community' handled it very well as a whole and came to the correct conclusion. It certainly wasn't a failure IMO, and I think improvements could certainly (should certainly) be made for the next go-round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts