Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 ^That's certainly true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Well that's not a half bad question. I would consider it a hoax which failed. I guess it's kind of word semantics but let me explain. The tracks were made Researchers called in Researchers went to site Evidence was collected Discussions started to inform the community on popular websites Interest formed Then and only then - after investigation started did the hoax start to unravel. As good as we all like to think we are at spotting a hoax or an attempt - we won't know anything until the evidence is collected, brought back and studied. Personally I think as soon as people are involved in something (without their knowledge) that is an attempt to fool them in any way - and they even begin to consider the possibility - if the person creating the hoax does not step forward to put a stop to it- the hoax is in full swing.. Now, whether the people brought into these situations unknowingly go the full mile with it is ultimately up to them. But, I think it's safe to assume that after the very first post was made to any forum - or discussion had that got back to the hoaxers --- the claim of victory was in the air from the hoaxer(s). That's really all they are looking for. The satisfaction of knowing their "work" is being discussed and the more people that can be fooled - the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Yep, cyber attention getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Sometimes I wonder if some hoaxes and discreditations are engineered to keep a wood ape (bigfoot, sasquatch, etc) from being actually discovered. Take Melba Ketchum for example. Everything she was working towards looked good and legitimate, but then on her facebook page she talks about interacting with these magical creatures and how playful they are, and how camera shy they are. It ends up discrediting all of her work, just because of what is easily perceived as fantasy. Or the Erickson project, it was looking good, then some deal about money and NDAs, and then some soft of fiction about bigfoot written by one of the people that were very heavily involved. If bigfoot was discovered, who loses? Do i think a large nocturnal primate lives in our deep forests - yes - Does somebody else KNOW they exist and don't want it to be public? It seems possible. If big foot was discovered big foot would lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 So, what is the teachable moment here? The teachable moment is, if you go into the field, thinking everything is Bigfoot, Then it will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Wouldn't the Elbe trackway be described best as an "attempted hoax" since it was discredited pretty quickly. To the hoaxer it is just a big, fresh red herring to flop on the table. Good point, though I'd like to mention that the prefix of 'attempted' does not in any way lessen or dial down the fact that it has caused inconvenience and grief. Also, a hoax left undispelled will propagate through time, becoming known as 'history'. After 'history' has been made, those who attempt to dispell said hoax will promptly be labelled 'conspiracy theorists'. But I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Due to a lack of conclusive evidence, I'm assuming here that a skeptic created the Elbe trackway that has gotten a few proponents very upset. And, from what I've gathered, the trackway was not proclaimed a fake because of the trackway, but was instead questioned as a hoax because of the computer forensics involved. So, I have to ask, when proponents challenge skeptics to create a fake trackway that will fool researchers, and a skeptic steps up and does so, at what point should he reveal his hoax? Should he reveal his intention before hand? Sort of like my work does, when they send an email telling us there will be a fire drill the next day? So when the fire drill goes off the next day, people leave the building anyway, even though they've been warned it's not a real fire, it's only a drill. It takes no skill or expertise to proclaim it's just a drill, the same as it takes no skill or expertise to proclaim the pre-announced faked trackway as a fake. Should he reveal the hoax as soon as he has finished laying the last track? Again, what would be the point? The researchers, if they even show up, are going to show up knowing it's a fake from the beginning, so of course they'll proclaim it a fake. Should he wait a few days? A week? Should he wait to see if the researchers can determine by track examination alone, whether the trackway is faked or not? At what specific point should the faker proclaim that he faked the trackway? Or should skeptics not attempt to fake trackways at all, even when challenged to do so? And how should we treat proponents that admit to faking tracks? If the old adage 'fool me once, shame on you' has become 'fool me once, you should be banned, barred, run out of town, and forever treated with disdain', then shouldn't that apply equally to anyone who admits to hoaxing tracks? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Ray, can you point out where the BFRO or Cliff posed this challenge? And Ray, what computer forensics were involved? Can you offer any proof that such 'forensics' led to the ID of the hoaxer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Exactly why I prefaced my post with "Due to a lack of conclusive evidence..." I never said that the BFRO or Cliff had specifically posed the challenge, only that proponents had done so. And probably computer forensics was not the best phrase to use. (watching too much Investigative Discovery network). From what I've read it involved an IP address, by which computers exchange information, which is analogous to writing a street address on the outside of an envelope when one wishes to utilize the old-fashioned way to send correspondence. There are a number of online sources that will allow the tracing/identification of an IP address. Bottom line - the hoax played out for about 10 days before proponents started throwing the hoax word around with any conviction. I've not seen anything that indicated researchers had uncovered the hoax because of their examination of the trackway. The hoax was discovered by comparing IP addresses. Or so I've read. If you have proof of something other than that, I've not read about it anywhere. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 12, 2012 Admin Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) An IP address is not enough to identify an individual. Routers perform Network Address Translation (NAT) between the private network and the public internet, so one IP address could have hundreds or thousands of computers behind it. Think of a corporate or public institution network. Also, ISPs change their customer's IP address all the time. Additionally, the IP address shown in an email is NOT the IP address of the sender, but rather, the mail server the user is using. So stories about linking the IP of an email to the hoaxer's IP are... hmm... doubtful. Edited October 12, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Now don't be denigrating the lowly IP address. Most message forums have the ability to not only see the IP address of users, but to keep track of them as well, and if you have an IP address you can find out some general information as well. For example, in a matter of seconds, I just visited three separate websites that correctly determined my IP address, and one of those even gave me details about my ISP, the hostname of my system, what type of connection I have, and the country, province, and city in which I'm living. So if I were to sign in and leave a post on a message forum in the morning, and then send someone an email in the afternoon, the recorded IP address (they are almost certainly the same) from each of those activities would tend to place a lot of suspicion upon me. And yes, your ISP may have thousands of customers utilizing IP addresses, but your specific IP address may change often or not so often, depending on that ISP. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Additionally, the IP address shown in an email is NOT the IP address of the sender, but rather, the mail server the user is using. So stories about linking the IP of an email to the hoaxer's IP are... hmm... doubtful. Sure the IP address can be found in an email's header. I just sent myself one from my own account back to myself, and after you weed out the bulk of the header info and get down to the last path before the email's content itself, my current IP shows up in "Received.... From:" and who my email handler is, which ISN'T my internet company. I meant to add as well, I've gone many months before with the same IP address thru my cable company, because I never shut my router and modem down. The only time I've had IP changes were when there were extensive system wide issues with Mediacom. Sometimes, I've only been off for an hour or two, and once service came back, I still had the same IP from before the temporary outage. Just "never say never". Edited October 13, 2012 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Talk about getting off topic. IP huh ? Let's get back to motivation !!!! I'll start. GLORY and WOMEN !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 13, 2012 Admin Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) It still is not conclusive RayG. GuyinIndiana, that's the public IP of the mail server, not your computer IP, unless you're using a web service like yahoo or gmail. Actually, just tested yahoo and it strips the source IP from the headers. If you don't believe me, test it yourself. 1) Start --> type cmd on the search box (or start --> run in XP) 2) type IPCONFIG and press Enter. That is your computer's actual IP address. It's a private IP behind the router, most likely starts with 192.168.1.x or 10.1.10.x 3) open a web browser and go to whatismyip.com. That is the PUBLIC IP of your router. That is the IP which is logged, NOT your private IP. There can be many computers behind your router. 4) send yourself an email and check the header. You'll see that your IP does NOT appear anywhere in the header, not even the public IP of your router. Edited October 13, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I agree, not conclusive... even said so... twice. Go here, then click on 'Additional IP Details' and see what comes up. For me it showed not only my IP address, but my hostname as well. The site defines 'hostname' as the "Fully Qualified Domain Name that uniquely and absolutely names a computer." Even if your IP address changes, your hostname should stay the same. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts