The Motivation To Hoax

[southernyahoo]

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?

Excellent thoughts.

[Guest UPs]

IMO, the system worked. For those that think the researchers should have immediately declared this trackway as a hoax would not be good investigators of anything of importance. I would rather see any investigator take their time and get the correct answer rather than declare hoax or confirmed bf trackway. All of us know that there are a few folks out there that have a very real problem of accepting anything outside of their own neat little world and these people are not going to change. The unfortunate thing is that hoaxing will extend the time it takes for actual discovery by trying to cast doubt on other evidence that cannot be proved as a hoax. The individual motivation can be one of many things, but it is clear to me that the serial bf hoaxer is a very selfish person that probably thinks they have little importance in the world, is single, white, male, a loner, no secondary education, but has a moderate IQ level. These are not absolutes, but just my personal opinion.

In this specific example, the researchers handled it very well by:

- publishing facts immediately ( pics, opinions, etc ).

- getting to the area quickly using their own resources.

- documenting the trackway in a timely manner.

- getting others opinions.

- not declaring hoax or real immediately.

- using all resources to come to a positive conclusion in a timely manner, hoax.

To me, this boosts my own confidence in the good folks who did investigate this. Job well done. To the hoaxer/hoaxers involved in this I would only ask that you to think about about how your own actions affect other people. UPs

[Guest]

Well, in my opinion, and I am definately not a Bigfoot Skeptic, the hoax was apparent. Just by looking at the stomper pictures provided here on the BFF and other places,the hoax should have been even easier to spot to those on site.There was no need to take that much extra time. Why was there a need to defend the validity of the trackway for 10 days if they suspected it was a hoax? Why go on a radio show and declare it a major trackway find?

[Guest]

Just how easy is it to fool bigfoot researchers anyway?

Apparently harder than Skeptics think, since the only booby caught in the recent booby trap was the hoaxer.

If anything it kind of ends the argument that humans can't make convincing trackways.

RayG

as usual, you are mis-stating the argument. The question at had is whether or not a bunch of Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokels out whittlin' wood on the porch are going to create scientifically convincing trackways not only on an individual case basis, but across decades of time and 100s or 1000s of miles of distance, and do so so consistently that scientific analysis of the distribution patterns of those tracks maps to the distribution of a population of real animals.

Get the argument right, Ray.

Nah, they were duped for nearly 10 full days. Where exactly are you getting your information Mulder? My timeline of the events show no statements from Derek and DDA that directly contradict my assertions.

I'll show you my timeline if you show me yours.

RayG

Go back and read the appropriate threads, Ray.

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

If you cannot understand the difference between having a suspicion and voicing a suspicion, then there is little I can do to help you. Both DDA and Derek have said that they were suspicious of the trackway from Day 1. By continuing to assert that they were "duped" for ANY length of time, you are accusing them of not telling the truth.

Reminds me of Tontar's little stunt calling Bill an "agenda driven researcher" with a bias, even after Bill himself corrected him. He never apologized either.

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.

Are you also accusing Derek, DDA, etc of not telling the truth?

[Guest RayG]

A stretch? Hardly. It was convincing enough that none of the onsite investigators/researchers determined they were fake from the onset. And this was no fleeting glance at the tracks, or someone merely showing them photos of the tracks, they measured, photographed, followed, and cast them.

There is no 'victory' here. Surely it's not a stretch to question whether some of the trackways of the past like the Bossburg tracks back in '69, would pass muster today.

RayG

[Guest]

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.

In other words, it's more important to play "Gotcha" than to act in an honorable manner with integrity.

You'd never tolerate that from a proponent, but once again, it's one standard for proponents and another for Skeptics.

So much for the atomic-particle sized shred of credibility you thought you once had.

Didn't see your silly analogy very disrespectful to fire fighters but whatever works for you.

I think we all know who is being disrespectful here...

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

Yes we do....

Edited October 13, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

A stretch? Hardly. It was convincing enough that none of the onsite investigators/researchers determined they were fake from the onset.

It wasn't convincing enough to eliminate the doubts they had. That's the point. The one you conveniently ignore time and again so you and your fellow Skeptics can jump up and down screaming "GOTCHA!"

^^^^

Yes we do

Yep. And they're all Skeptics.

[Guest]

In other words, it's more important to play "Gotcha" than to act in an honorable manner with integrity.

You'd never tolerate that from a proponent, but once again, it's one standard for proponents and another for Skeptics.

So much for the atomic-particle sized shred of credibility you thought you once had.

I think we all know who is being disrespectful here...

These men who were at that trackway site are recognised as some of the top people in the Bigfoot field Mulder. I do not find it disrespectful to ask them questions. They should be able to handle the questions and scrutiny they receive if they are the top people.. So far, all I have heard is "I am taking my ball and leaving" or "you dont know what you are talking about because you were not there." Right, I don't know. So please explain.

[Guest UPs]

John, to you they were obviously a hoax and looking back, you were right. To me, as someone who is not into the politics of the bf world, I am mainly concerned that the correct conclusion was determined based on facts. There are so many pieces of evidence that no conclusion can be reached even after many years, that having a conclusion based on facts is welcome to me. I am not going to criticize someone for being wrong unless they will not admit it, we see that enough here.

What is your opinion on the Minnesota snow trackway? If you determined its a hoax, how did you and how was the trackway laid down without leaving any other obvious markings in the snow around them? I am truly interested in your opinion.

[Guest]

John, to you they were obviously a hoax and looking back, you were right. To me, as someone who is not into the politics of the bf world, I am mainly concerned that the correct conclusion was determined based on facts. There are so many pieces of evidence that no conclusion can be reached even after many years, that having a conclusion based on facts is welcome to me. I am not going to criticize someone for being wrong unless they will not admit it, we see that enough here.

What is your opinion on the Minnesota snow trackway? If you determined its a hoax, how did you and how was the trackway laid down without leaving any other obvious markings in the snow around them? I am truly interested in your opinion.

I did not want or need to be right. I am truly sad that this hoax happened the way it did. My opinion of all trackways is that unless there is a Bigfoot at the end of them, who cares? I have not seen the MN snow tracks, but it sounds like It could be a rabbit or other small animal jumping through the snow.

Or it could have been a Bigfoot.... who knows?

Edited October 13, 2012 by JohnCartwright

[Guest wudewasa]

My opinion of all trackways is that unless there is a Bigfoot at the end of them, who cares?

Best comment so far!

[Guest]

I did not want or need to be right. I am truly sad that this hoax happened the way it did. My opinion of all trackways is that unless there is a Bigfoot at the end of them, who cares? I have not seen the MN snow tracks, but it sounds like It could be a rabbit or other small animal jumping through the snow.

Or it could have been a Bigfoot.... who knows?

If it's the trackway I'm thinking of, I HAVE seen the photos, and there is no way it was a rabbit hopping. These tracks were punched deep into heavy snow with none of the "feathering" front and back you would expect from a rabbit leap, even if you had a 100+ pound bunny doing the leaping. and they were single tracks not the collection of smaller tracks a rabbit would leave. The on site investigators ruled out the bunny theory explicitly, if I'm recalling the testimony correctly.

*ETA* THIS is what rabbit tracks look like in snow:

These men who were at that trackway site are recognised as some of the top people in the Bigfoot field Mulder. I do not find it disrespectful to ask them questions. They should be able to handle the questions and scrutiny they receive if they are the top people.. So far, all I have heard is "I am taking my ball and leaving" or "you dont know what you are talking about because you were not there." Right, I don't know. So please explain.

Repeatedly calling them "duped" "had from the start", etc when they explicitly said they had problems with the trackway from the very beginning is disrespectful and baseless.

Best comment so far!

More "if not 'proof', not evidence" absolutism. Logical fallacy over reason.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest UPs]

I did not want or need to be right. I am truly sad that this hoax happened the way it did. My opinion of all trackways is that unless there is a Bigfoot at the end of them, who cares? I have not seen the MN snow tracks, but it sounds like It could be a rabbit or other small animal jumping through the snow.

Or it could have been a Bigfoot.... who knows?

This is kind of an important statement in that as a hunter, one of the most important things I can do is learn about the animal I am hunting before I actually hunt it. Tracks are just one of the signs that I use along with rubs, scrapes, and signs of feeding. Some hunters simply go into the woods and hope they see something, but the most successful will try and learn about the animals or specific animal by using sign or spoor. This is one of the problems that hoaxing contributes to, possible real and hoaxed data mixed together.

As far as the MN trackway, it's either bf or a hoax. Someone with obvious little experience in snow tracking thought it was a rabbit, lol. If that trackway is real, there is one glaring dynamic to be learned from it and anyone actively looking for them should become familiar with it.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Well, in my opinion, and I am definately not a Bigfoot Skeptic, the hoax was apparent. Just by looking at the stomper pictures provided here on the BFF and other places,the hoax should have been even easier to spot to those on site.There was no need to take that much extra time. Why was there a need to defend the validity of the trackway for 10 days if they suspected it was a hoax? Why go on a radio show and declare it a major trackway find?

Good and valid observation. I checked out the Elbe hoax thread on the JREF and there were some excellent posts by Tube regarding how to determine whether tracks are valid or not. Perhaps it is time that we have some similar analysis here regarding how to interpret tracks for the edification of our forum members.

Surely it's not a stretch to question whether some of the trackways of the past like the Bossburg tracks back in '69, would pass muster today.

That's a good question. Comparing the Elbe trackway revelation and public discussion to how the Bossburg trackway was handled shows a very different process. I don't have an opinion regarding the Bossburg trackway. Is there a thread specifically discussing this?

So far, all I have heard is "I am taking my ball and leaving" or "you dont know what you are talking about because you were not there." Right, I don't know. So please explain.

My understanding is that Scott is preparing a final report on the trackway. I look forward to reading it and hopefully they will also finally release the complete initial walk through video and still shots, as I repeatedly requested in the original trackway thread. Without that it is very difficult for someone to have an informed opinion.

As far as the MN trackway, it's either bf or a hoax. Someone with obvious little experience in snow tracking thought it was a rabbit, lol. If that trackway is real, there is one glaring dynamic to be learned from it and anyone actively looking for them should become familiar with it.

The Minnesota Trackway is far more important in my opinion than many other trackways I've reviewed. The original thread about this trackway is here. The difficulty of hoaxing a trackway in deep snow with long strides cannot be emphasized enough. Discussion of the Magic Bunny theory is in the original thread and has been fairly accurately discounted. This was not a misidentification. It was a large bipedal barefoot trackway through very difficult conditions with exceptional strides.