Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 And if the 'Hairy Back' photo taker comes forward and says it was a hoax, what will be the reaction of all the people that said it looks real? will they say they too thought it was fake, they just didn't say it? I am going to assume you are addressing me personally with this question. I have no idea how people would or would not react. I am only responsible for myself and my own statements. I have gone out of my way to darn near beg people to not take one side or the other. If they do, I can't stop them - as I was not bestowed with the superpowers of human mind control. Also, I remember there being a specific thread devoted to this topic - any questions you have - might be best placed there. It keeps everything in one spot for easy access later. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Since the question was asking a theoretical question about the picture being a hoax, and this thread is about hoaxing. I don't see why the question was off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The simple fact is that the researchers who posted on this forum were taken in - for how long and to what extent is not actually clear. From their published posts they were completely sold, from their comments lately they were on to this from the first second. What does it matter in the end? What we really learned is that even experienced researchers make mistakes and that there is room for education, skepticism, and a need for investigation review. Is it a suprise? Not really, the same can be said about any other field. If DDA & DF use this oppurtunity to learn something then this can still be a success. If they decide to never post here again then THEY fail - no one else. Do you think a scientist, cop, firefighter, or a soldier refuses to return to work because they made a mistake and had it pointed out to them in a review? There were many problems w/the tracks which were evident to many on here just from pictures. There were problems w/the reporting process which were evident to many on here from the description. There were problems in the way the find was portrayed prior to investigation which were evident to many on here. What should be done in the future? Should investigators not investigate? Of course not, w/o investigation we lose too much. Should we not put findings on the internet? Of course not, it's obvious to anyone who read the thread that there were valid concerns brought up by skeptics AND proponents which were not obvious to the researchers (at least from their comments). Why not use the abilities/perspectives of the many whenever possible - it may not be the fastest way but it's more complete w/less chance of mistakes. Imagine this forum as a form of peer review - having mistakes in your methodology pointed out may sting for a second but if you want to be published you change and you try again. The alternative is to publish in a non peer reviewed journal where your science still gets reviewed and you look like an idiot when it's picked apart for any mistakes it contains - the more simple the mistake the more universal the scorn. Ultimately it's up to each individual researcher to determine the legacy they leave and what their impact is in the search for bigfoot. They can be secretive and proudly proclaim each find as the next great thing w/o bringing forth any evidence - only to have all their mistakes pointed out to them when/if they decide to come forward. They can be open and use this forum as a way to not only share their experience but to learn from the experience of others and utilize that input in their research. Which sounds like the description of a dedicated researcher who wants to get an answer to the mystery? Which sounds like an unscrupulous person looking to make a buck? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Ohiobill said: What we really learned is that even experienced researchers make mistakes and that there is room for education, skepticism, and a need for investigation review. But, if the hoaxer(s) wont talk - what is the "education"? We can only speculate as to what the point was - only they can tell us what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think your viewpoint is overly simplistic on this issue. BFS is pointing out research on the JREF and this forum is still open for business if DDA & DR want to share what they learned to other researchers. Do criminals disclose their methods to the police prior to being caught? Do police still catch criminals? If the search for bigfoot is dependent upon hoaxers disclosing their methods it is doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) Overly simplistic? LOL. I am not the one who is making the argument that it's okay to hoax researchers - for what we can learn from it. AND - I am not saying you are. I also never said - things won't be learned. Oh, I am betting field researchers are learning a lot from all this. But, so far the only thing learned is "track ways can be hoaxed"... But, we already knew that, so that can't be the only lesson here. Seriously, is there anyone reading this that thought (prior to this Elbe Trackway incident) that Track ways or individual tracks could not be hoaxed? Guess we will find out once the hoaxers speak. Edited October 22, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) OK, they say they had unvoiced doubts from day 1. Why is it my or anyone's responsibilty to supply the proof to back DDA and DR's statements? Because YOU are the one saying they are not telling the truth when they say it. That is YOUR claim to defend. Do you always proceed on the assumption that any statement you are given is false until "proven true"? How exactly do you expect them to prove what you are asking. By definition, unvoiced thoughts are unvoiced, and therefore undocumentable. So ultimately you are: 1) failing to provide any evidence for YOUR claim that their statements are untrue. 2) invoking "prove the negative" argumentation ("prove they're NOT lying") and 3) asking them what is in effect an unprovable proposition in any event. You seem like a nice enough person John...you should be better than that. I see this alleged hoaxing as a kind of turning point for our community. Before this situation a known hoaxer would be run out. Now, it seems like there is a call to allow the hoaxers and trash the researchers.. But, in this particular situation, if this is a hoax (and I am willing to bet my life it is) I still don't know what we were all supposed to learn? There had to be an "end goal" - especially if the hoaxer was/is a part of this community. You are exactly right. We already knew hoaxing tracks is possible. So, was it really the goal of this hoaxer to just simply create this track way to fool these researchers? If memory serves - the initial email was sent to Cliff Barackman. I highly doubt the hoaxer thought for a second the people - who got involved - would or did. Could this have been an attempt to simply discredit Cliff Barackman (remember he is the casting guru for the show Finding Bigfoot)?? Researchers in general and possibly him in particular. Clearly this is not about "teaching" at all. Why do I say that? How long ago was this track way left? Have we heard why or how? Have we learned anything other than there is someone within our midst who is intent on hoaxing field researchers? Nope.. That is the lesson I am taking away. Whomever this is - is staying very quiet. If the reasons behind the hoax were as noble as teaching us something - why wouldn't this person want to tell us how much more they know about hoaxing a track way than the rest of us? Because he/they know the instant they fess up no one will ever take them seriously again. If what this person did was so righteous - where are they? Lord knows whomever the hoaxer is - they have support for their actions. It's not too hard to figure out from the public info if you read carefully enough, or if you're PMP and can access the Tar Pit where this is being openly debated. Drew, on 22 October 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:And if the 'Hairy Back' photo taker comes forward and says it was a hoax, what will be the reaction of all the people that said it looks real? will they say they too thought it was fake, they just didn't say it? Good Question. Some might, others might point out that a successful hoax by definition would have to be good. The simple fact is that the researchers who posted on this forum were taken in - for how long and to what extent is not actually clear. From their published posts they were completely sold, from their comments lately they were on to this from the first second. What does it matter in the end? What we really learned is that even experienced researchers make mistakes and that there is room for education, skepticism, and a need for investigation review. Is it a suprise? Not really, the same can be said about any other field. No, that is not "the simple fact". Having doubts from Day 1 is NOT "being taken in". Edited October 22, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Melissa - Yes, overly simplistic if you think that the most important thing to learn from this is exactly how the hoaxer(s) made the footprints. Anyone on this forum could make those tracks using a prosthetic attached to a shoe or boot. As it was pointed out in the Elbe thread and this one numerous times there were indications that pointed to human hoaxing from the start. Lack of independent toe movement, short stride lengths, monolithic print edges, indications that there was substantial toe pressure imparted rather than a mid-tarsal break, shortcomings in the reporting/investigation process, problems coming to a conclusion on the evidence prior to investigating, and problems in how this community and researchers reacts to criticism. I am saying we have no control over being hoaxed so get used to it and let's work to educate each other on how to detect the hoaxes and weed them out before they have a chance to contaminate any future research. I believe that addressing the methodology and coming up with a plan to display any future trackways and work at least somewhat constructively together as skeptics/proponents is more important that what you are focusing on. I think it will be much more productive than worrying about who made them or why. Do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Because YOU are the one saying they are not telling the truth when they say it. That is YOUR claim to defend. Do you always proceed on the assumption that any statement you are given is false until "proven true"? How exactly do you expect them to prove what you are asking. By definition, unvoiced thoughts are unvoiced, and therefore undocumentable. So ultimately you are: 1) failing to provide any evidence for YOUR claim that their statements are untrue. 2) invoking "prove the negative" argumentation ("prove they're NOT lying") and 3) asking them what is in effect an unprovable proposition in any event. You seem like a nice enough person John...you should be better than that. You really don't get it, do you? Regarding Bigfoot and Bigfooters, YES, I always proceed under the assumption that any statement given is false unless proven true. Even my own sighting. I am not immune to my own rule. It does not matter to me if people believe what I say I saw (although it can be comforting or frustrating), It matters to me that there is no proof of what I say I saw. This is the reason why I am involved in this field at all. What I believe and what can be proven ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Do I beiieve the PGF is real? YES. Do I believe there is any real proof that it is real? NO Do you understand? That said, I have not asked them to PROVE anything. I have asked them to discuss what doubts they had and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 ^And those were admitted to by Derek and DDA themselves. I'd also like to point out that at least one of the persons "pointing out" the "tells" was in on the hoax. It hardly proves anything about the average researcher or investigator for the perpetrator to know the details of how it was perpetrated. You really don't get it, do you? yes, I do "get it" (see below) Regarding Bigfoot and Bigfooters, YES, I always proceed under the assumption that any statement given is false unless proven true. well that throws critical thinking and the scientific method out the window then. That whole "objective" thing, you know... Even my own sighting. I am not immune to my own rule. points to you for consistency, even if it is in applying a wrong rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Yes Mulder, they were taken in as evidenced by their posts. SIMPLE. I'm willing to believe they had misgivings but it's obvious that those misgivings didn't overcome their desire to claim the realism of the find on this public forum among other places. Personally, I don't think it matters much in the grand scheme of things if they incorporate what they learned it future investigation. I liken it to peer review and taking critical comments in stride. What won't help is them not learning from their mistakes and you continuing to claim they made no mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Melissa - Yes, overly simplistic if you think that the most important thing to learn from this is exactly how the hoaxer(s) made the footprints. Actually, It's my personal opinion this about more than the faking of a track way. I don't remember saying anything different either. Anyone on this forum could make those tracks using a prosthetic attached to a shoe or boot. As it was pointed out in the Elbe thread and this one numerous times there were indications that pointed to human hoaxing from the start. Lack of independent toe movement, short stride lengths, monolithic print edges, indications that there was substantial toe pressure imparted rather than a mid-tarsal break, shortcomings in the reporting/investigation process, problems coming to a conclusion on the evidence prior to investigating, and problems in how this community and researchers reacts to criticism. You list these things as if those of us who are field researchers don't already know about these things. I promise you, most of us do. So, knowing that - what is the lesson? If we as "researchers" are supposed to be okay with this - it better be because we are learning something we don't already know - and I guarantee hoaxing then disappearing isn't teaching anyone what to look for in a track that would be an indication of hoaxing.. I am saying we have no control over being hoaxed so get used to it and let's work to educate each other on how to detect the hoaxes and weed them out before they have a chance to contaminate any future research. I already know we have no control over it. But, I do think it's pretty shady when it comes from within this "community".. And as far as I am concerned too much time has elapsed - the "learning experience" should have happened by now. I believe that addressing the methodology and coming up with a plan to display any future trackways and work at least somewhat constructively together as skeptics/proponents is more important that what you are focusing on. I think it will be much more productive than worrying about who made them or why. Do you disagree? I agree it is important to discuss and "address" the things you discuss - but that isn't happening in the case of the "Great Elbe Trackway Hoax" now is it? No. All I have seen is the researchers involved be drug through the mud. If there is a thread by the Hoaxer(s) on the how and why of this hoax - please point me to it. How can we discuss the important issues you bring up - if the people responsible are in hiding and won't discuss how they did it or why? Like I said - until the hoaxer(s) come forward all we can do is speculate - they have the answers and the teachable lesson. I can't speculate on only what they know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I do not think they made any mistakes. Without even going back to review it all, just going on the feel I got from it at the time, was they where excited, and the impression I got was they felt that if it was real, it was a huge find. I clearly had the impression that final analyse was going to tell the real story, and although they where excited, I did not get the impression if ever received the rubber stamp of authenticity. Skeptics, scofftics, self empowered proponents, can all claim some sort of gotcha syndrome,or whatever the heck it is they are shooting here for, but the reality is, upon investigation, they primary researchers reached the conclusion it was hoax. If the police go to investigate a death, and for a few days entertain the idea it was a murder, but upon further review, they discover it was an accident, does someone jump and scream "oh,but at first you where not sure.....so gotcha!!" Seriously, some good critical thinking guys. What is the goal? What is it the skeptics, scofftics, self entitled proponents are shooting for here? I seem to have lost the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 well that throws critical thinking and the scientific method out the window then. In no way is that the case. I believe you are wrong in the way you apply those methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think your viewpoint is overly simplistic on this issue. BFS is pointing out research on the JREF and this forum is still open for business if DDA & DR want to share what they learned to other researchers. Do criminals disclose their methods to the police prior to being caught? Do police still catch criminals? If the search for bigfoot is dependent upon hoaxers disclosing their methods it is doomed. Excellent Bill. I agree that in some cases hoaxers can be likened to criminals. I'm surprised you feel that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts