Guest RayG Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I disagree with your opinion JohnC. I like to think of myself as a fact-checker, and when Mulder claimed (on both sites) that specific researchers made statements indicating that they questioned the authenticity of the trackway "from the start", I set out to see if that was true. My timeline began with the discovery on September 17th, and I found no serious consideration of the tracks being a hoax verbalized by those specific researchers until September 27th. Ten days is not "from the start", which seems to directly contradict Mulder's claim. If he is able to provide a timeline that supports his claim then he should do so. There's no gloating on my part, just an expectation that if you present a claim you should be able to back it up. I see no one has attempted to answer the questions I asked in post #142. Why is that? I think they're fair questions. I'm especially interested in seeing someone explain the logic for criticizing the hoaxers for doing what they were challenged to do. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) In my opinion your splitting hairs to attempt to salvage something from all this. What is it your attempting to salvage? Ten days, for a group of part time investigators, ten days to get there, examine, analyze, make casts, set casts, let casts harden, clean casts,and get an over all feel for it. I would be impressed if a team of professional full time investigators could do things as quickly, accurately and honestly as this group of people did. Sorry that's not good enough for you Ray, ten full days of being "duped". Yes Ray, I think I see your point very clearly, thank you, its enlightening. Sounds like doubt from the start to me. I guess mine is different, and more realistic perspective than yours. Edited October 13, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 13, 2012 Admin Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) When you put it that way John, it's a fair assessment. It's not like the researchers are government paid employees tasked with analyzing the trackway at taxpayer's expense. Now that I think about it, that would've taken much longer... These are guys/gals out after work, doing it on their own time and dime. Edited October 13, 2012 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 ok so this rumor that the hoaxer was identified by ip address only is pretty much bull, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Ray, duped for ten days?? You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Yes we had problems with the track line. Do you assume because we didn't post all concerns here that everything was hunky dory? We were excited about the whole thing but to say we were duped for 10 days is ridicules, and a bit offensive. When we learned the identity of the report submitter we had not even got together to compare casts yet. We had also planed on scanning each and every cast before any conclusion report was to be put out. We are amateurs, but we certainly as stupid as you might think. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 From what I've read, the researchers started thinking it was a hoax after they couldn't communicate with the person that reported it. Before that they all agreed its the real deal. From what I've seen all the doubting was posted weeks after the fact, like hindsight. Oh yeah, what about this stomping ground Tom's friend found. He says it looks like an area where somebody put the fake feet on and stomped around. That seems to have been over looked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 That's the disappointing part about this if the hoaxer had handled it differently, the analysis could have been completed and that would have been very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) From what I've read, the researchers started thinking it was a hoax after they couldn't communicate with the person that reported it. Before that they all agreed its the real deal. From what I've seen all the doubting was posted weeks after the fact, like hindsight. I had a concern about the track in the top left photo in post 64 here. Thats the aerliest I can say that I saw something damning,to go with the toe's seemingly digging too deep on toe off, aside from the fact that tracks are notoriously diverse in appearance and these appeared almost a refinement of the Wallace design or an indication Wallace had real tracks guiding him. I've read that he had crew members quiting on him due to finding tracks. I figure he found a way to show them they were fakes and products of his pranking, so he could get them to laugh it off, and go back to work. Edited October 13, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 DR, Bads news you were duped the moment you got in your vehicle Next time just send me the pics and background! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 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? 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? The hoax should be revealed prior to the hoax to a well respected researcher in a well documented manner. At the moment the gig was up due to "computer forensics" then they should have been immediately forthcoming and brought the researcher holding evidence of the experiment into the discussion. There is a difference between conducting an experiment to see whether trackways can replicate characteristics of trackways that have been deemed or considered as valid BF trackways and conduct which is meant to hoax and place individuals in a poor light. One would be an experiment and the other is a poor attempt to cast bigfoot research itself as a hoax. My timeline began with the discovery on September 17th, and I found no serious consideration of the tracks being a hoax verbalized by those specific researchers until September 27th. I'm especially interested in seeing someone explain the logic for criticizing the hoaxers for doing what they were challenged to do. I've read your JREF timeline. Questions were being asked within the first few days and pages of the trackway thread. Requests for additional images, questions about stride length, etc. People were using phrases like "if these are real". Sure, there were those that immediately jumped on the "Gosh! These are amazing!" bandwagon, but I think a careful reading of the thread would show that the majority of BFF members were waiting for more evidence or for the investigators to complete their work. As noted earlier in this thread much of the trackway investigation centers on analysis of casts. Casts take time to cure and clean up to start analysis. Don't be shocked by the fact that the BFF isn't the end all of the world of bigfoot research. There were a number of blog posts and other discussion boards going on that were questioning and critical of what was going on. The fact that the hoaxers appear to have originated from this forum in answer to challenges by proponents such as myself, and the fact that the "crowing" over such a resounding "success" was so blatantly obvious and jumping the gun, was rather comical. The fact of the matter is that researchers involved in the investigation were questioning not only the trackway, but the initial e-mail reporting the trackway before they looked at the tracks. Note in the OP of the trackway thread that "for some reason" the original report wasn't taken seriously, then individuals started doing the research and DDD was invited to participate. That was the first indication that something was fishy. The hoaxers were challenged to emulate a trackway. Apparently they did so. However, at the point that they were identified they should have immediately noted they were responding to said challenge and publicly stated the facts and presented their documentation of the experiment for public review. That would have been a legitimate response. What I've read so far seems to indicate they were proceeding from a view point that, "All bigfoot evidence is hoaxed, therefore it is okay to make bigfoot researchers look like fools and why are we so bad?" This seems to be the fundamental fall back position from the hoaxers and JREF members. Fundamentally, the Elbe trackway has some major problems that don't meet the criteria needed to qualify as a viable BF trackway. Chief among these is that they don't demonstrate stride length in difficult terrain as seen in other trackway. We still don't yet have complete analysis of the Elbe trackway, but my understanding is that the stride length was very short compared to the London trackway or the Minnesota trackway. In particular when looking at the Minnesota trackway I think it would be incredibly difficult to get strides like that in deep snow. Ray, your questions regarding whether there is a legitimate way to proceed to answer the challenge of proponents are valid. It is obvious that the challenge hasn't been passed and that it was attempted in a manner and for purposes that were less than honorable. It is past time for the hoaxers to present their side of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Apparently to "pass" the hoaxers "test", unpaid, uncompensated and unsupported field researchers are required to proclaim "Hoax!" within a certain time frame, as determined by the hoaxer, and to be based solely on the physical characteristics of the trackway. Extemporaneous evidence, such as suspicious behavior or behaviourable forensics, or even someone jumping up and down screaming "I made them!! should be ignored so the hoax can be properly tested based only on the merits of the trackway and the skills of the researcher. Time allowed for the test is determined by the hoaxer, and is not provided to the researcher? Time starts when the hoaxer feels it should? Hoaxers can be purists too apparently. Is travel time deducted? Is the clock stopped for family/real world activities, such as job attendance, family requirements? Are there allowances for weather, length of daylight etc. The researcher(s) verbal and written public comments are graded as well, critiqued as to tone of statement, level of excitement, and factuality. A hoaxer protocol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 DR, Bads news you were duped the moment you got in your vehicle Next time just send me the pics and background! That is like laughing at firemen for showing up at a false alarm. So, now the "counting coup" has to be claimed from the moment the investigators had to go document a trackway that would be a temporary piece of evidence no matter the outcome? Wow. Let me dig a while to reach that level of expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) BFS, Negatory! It has to run its course all the way to the "experts" and then some. Doucument how it was done... so after its made the rounds here and elsewhere as "fact" it can be reveled. The mistake here was they got greedy going after big fish, swingin for the fence. But don't fret I'm sure alot has been learned for sure. Didn't see your silly analogy very disrespectful to fire fighters but whatever works for you. Edited October 13, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Ray, duped for ten days?? You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Yes we had problems with the track line. Do you assume because we didn't post all concerns here that everything was hunky dory? Yes, duped. Fooled, deceived, hoodwinked, hoaxed. Am I laughing about that? No. Am I saying anyone was a fool for thinking they were valid prints? No. Am I saying that the people on site had no reservations whatsoever? No, I wasn't there, didn't have on-the-ground face-to-face interaction with the researchers involved, and have no idea what you said amongst yourselves. But I know how to read, and looking at the public verbalization from various participants certainly made it seem like you all thought it was the real deal. Where was your apprehension during your interview with Sharon Lee? Not once did you mention the possibility of hoaxing, being hoaxed, fake tracks, or give any indication that you thought they weren't real. I got the impression you thought it was an actual bigfoot, that it was really cool where it chose to walk, and that it had a purpose -- to end up feasting on blackberries. You called it an "amazing track find." On September 21st, you, Cliff Barackman, and Paul Graves all agreed that the tracks were real. Within the next few days you also made the following comments about the trackway right here on the BFF: "historic"; "the best trackway find yet"; "truly exciting"; and, "I do believe them to be real". Maybe I'm not interpreting correctly, but why would you say in public that you believe them to be real, if in private you had suspicions they were hoaxed? We were excited about the whole thing but to say we were duped for 10 days is ridicules, and a bit offensive. No offense intended. That was the impression I got from reading your own words. On September 25 you believe them to be real, and the next evening you say, "It's a pretty compelling find, but it definitely could be a hoax". When we learned the identity of the report submitter we had not even got together to compare casts yet. We had also planed on scanning each and every cast before any conclusion report was to be put out. Which is why I believe the conclusion arrived at by the researchers was not based on the examination of the trackway, but rather, on the outing of the hoaxer through examination of his computer habits. We are amateurs, but we certainly as stupid as you might think. I've never indicated anywhere that the researchers were stupid, nor that I think they are. Had I been onsite I may have come to the same conclusions you did. What it seems to clearly demonstrate is that humans can create a convincing trackway. If they can create a convincing trackway now, could they have done so in the past? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 What it seems to clearly demonstrate is that humans can create a convincing trackway. If they can create a convincing trackway now, could they have done so in the past? I think this is the bottom line of your argument, correct? Your claim that the Elbe trackway is "convincing" is a stretch. Trying to claim victory based on fleeting initial observations early in an investigation doesn't rise to the level of investigators confirming the validity of the trackway. It seems you so desperately want and need the second element of your statement to be true that you are over reaching with this hoaxing attempt. It failed. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts