Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 See, I will not go into a big address of your reply, but perhaps you should reread it a few times, take out the personal hits on what I deem appropriate discussion, and think about what exactly is the theme, and goals of the forum. Often it is not the content of the discussions that I find disappointing, its the presentation. This is not the first time my critique of the board has been manipulated to seem as its "all about me", indeed, I expected it. Having said that, I still enjoy the board, for entertainment value if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Seems interesting that according to the article, Tontar discusses the "depth of the tracks" issue in a manner similar to Stryq, who recently showed up on the board, and entered straight into a uninformed "discussion" of track depth, with the same misunderstanding that Tontar seems to display. I wonder... G- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dozy Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Tontar, if I can offer some extremely simple advice: At this point there are a lot on this board that think you are the Elbe hoaxer. If you didn't do it, say so now. Your post will look like this: "I didn't do the Elbe hoax." or 'I didn't do it." Right now, the fact that you have danced around this issue without denial isn't good, IOW if you continue to avoid this simple response any reasonable individual will believe you did it, and if the moderator rules were mine, I would have you banned permanently from the site. BTW this is not an attack, but a simple and friendly bit of advice. Moderators please remove this post if you deem any problems with it. Or perhaps ... "I can neither confirm nor deny that I was the Elbe hoaxer" ... would be satisfactory ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 From what I've seen in the Tar Pit, the open forum, and the JREF, we've had plenty of "non-denial denials" replete with reasons why hoaxing is a good thing or reason why the hoax wasn't as bad as the behavior of the researchers who are hoaxing even worse than that. Sounds like a classic youth caught in the act, trying to say how it wasn't all that bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 When the hoaxer compensates for all the time and money they deliberately cost these people, then they can start making trivial comparisons. To justify it otherwise is selfish and self-serving. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I wonder if Mr. Perez has a lot of evidence that has been legally obtained that is not so tenuous or circumstantial as he relates in his newsletter or he could find himself up to his eyeballs in litigation. If I was Tontar I would be finding a good lawyer and finding out what the real evidence is. I hope those that are jumping on the "he is guilty" bandwagon know for certain that who they are calling out is really guilty because it is pretty easy to get a court order to obtain your information from this forum so you can be sued too. Fortunately there are screenshots aplenty which are available as evidence if posts are removed. I'm not making a judgement on guilt or innocence I am just asking that the lynch-mob mentality be reigned in a bit until the real evidence is put forth that removes all doubt one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 From what I've seen in the Tar Pit, the open forum, and the JREF, we've had plenty of "non-denial denials" replete with reasons why hoaxing is a good thing or reason why the hoax wasn't as bad as the behavior of the researchers who are hoaxing even worse than that. Sounds like a classic youth caught in the act, trying to say how it wasn't all that bad... Honestly I think what you've seen is the acknowledgement that there is no way to control the actions of the other 5 billion+ people who inhabit the earth and the realization that the knowledge to rule out hoaxes is much more important than the hoaxer's identity. From what I've seen in the same places AND the Bigfoot Times is an understanding that most researchers are woefully unprepared to combat hoaxing. I think the most telling quotes from Perez's article were "...and based on the need to be first at bat on the internet, it is also well documented that many can't-fool-me Bigfooters were taken in by the Elbe tracks" and "With so many investigators being fooled by deliberately faked Bigfoot tracks, one must openly wonder how skilled Bigfooters are in spotting a wooden nickel". I wonder if those who worry more about the "who" of a hoax aren't doing a disservice to this community by failing to focus on what's actually more important and whether or not they can change to better this community? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Very well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 rougefooter....thanks for posting that article. I think it's safe to say one hoaxer has been outed and more snooping will probably expose the bigger picture. Either way, it just reinforces the validity of some of the prior documented trackways by showing how difficult it would be to create a convincing trackway (stride length for example) and leaving a trail of bread crumbs right to the hoaxers doorstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I wonder if Mr. Perez has a lot of evidence that has been legally obtained that is not so tenuous or circumstantial as he relates in his newsletter or he could find himself up to his eyeballs in litigation. If I was Tontar I would be finding a good lawyer and finding out what the real evidence is. I hope those that are jumping on the "he is guilty" bandwagon know for certain that who they are calling out is really guilty because it is pretty easy to get a court order to obtain your information from this forum so you can be sued too. Fortunately there are screenshots aplenty which are available as evidence if posts are removed. I'm not making a judgement on guilt or innocence I am just asking that the lynch-mob mentality be reigned in a bit until the real evidence is put forth that removes all doubt one way or the other. Tontar: "Mr. Lawyer - a guy that writes a Bigfoot Newsletter says I hoaxed a trackway, I want to sue him" Lawyer: "I'm sorry, I can't sue people for accusations of association with mythical beasts". Isn't that the same arguement about why there could be no fraud case? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 ^Yep. I'd plus that, but I'm out for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 No worries Mulder. It ain't about the plusses y'know? But anyway. Tontar - any thoughts as to the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Who needs evidence to call somebody a hoaxer? This is Bigfoot remember we do it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Seems interesting that according to the article, Tontar discusses the "depth of the tracks" issue in a manner similar to Stryq, who recently showed up on the board, and entered straight into a uninformed "discussion" of track depth, with the same misunderstanding that Tontar seems to display. I wonder... G- Good point G. And what kind of a sock name is Stryq anyway? Tontar has made this too easy. This was a "psychological" experiment, gone bad. He's the hoaxer, no doubt, but he probably intended to pull a DFoot on us (BFF 1.0). Set us up, then confess and tell us all how gullible we were. But he got caught first then panicked. He didn't know whether to fess up so he went into hiding. Now he's back with cryptic posts to test the waters and steer us towards the "experiment gone bad" angle. His confession will be forthcoming on that premise. JMHO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts