The Motivation To Hoax

[Guest COGrizzly]

That's some funny stuff there BFS!

Derek, thanks.

[Drew]

I have no problem with someone being wrong, but going back 10 days later, and saying you weren't wrong, that's kind of tricky for me to get a hold of.

Example: Bob Gimlin comes out and says it was all a hoax. 500 Bigfooters are claiming they never said it couldn't be a hoax, just that they weren't sure.

[ohiobill]

I'm not sure where you have noticed any changes in my view of trackway evidence. In particular regarding the Elbe trackway if you read my posts I think you will note that I was repeatedly requesting initial walk through video (before the site was trashed) and additional detail images of each track in order to be able to form an opinion. I thought it was rather amusing that kitakaze included me in his list of quotes of people that were taken in by the trackway. Unfortunately all he came up with was my post regarding the excellence of the photograph image of the dermals and the importance of obtaining good photographic evidence of each track prior to casting in order to avoid casting artifacts (that happens to be a pet project of mine to create a light weight system for photographing tracks that may preclude the need for casting).

I was referring to your defense of the cross over step and how because you had used it in your travels it made it more likely to you that a bigfoot would do it. Most skeptical investigators would assume the opposite - they would feel that human size strides coupled with a known human movement would make it more likely to have been made by a human hoaxer - not less so as you posted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Z-drag setup", but I certainly agree with the idea that the Minnesota Trackway is a much more difficult trackway to hoax. Post holing in deep snow with long strides and no drag or marks between steps, having a foot that can wrap around snow and ice topped logs, and walking through and up and over difficult obstacles... all these would be incredibly difficult to replicate. Unlike the Elbe hoax, the MT was discovered by researchers well off the beaten path with no prior notification they existed.

A z-drag is simply two lines perpendicular to each other. You can travel along one line (the x axis) while changing your position along the y axis by pulling either direction on the other line. The addition of ascenders and a drop rope would allow travel along the z axis allowing one person to move three dimensionally in a large area while being suspended from a harness and only placing their hoaxing prosthetics in the snow where they want w/o leaving any other tracks. I wouldn't characterize it as "incredibly difficult" over a somewhat short distance unless you don't have adequate upper body strength.

[Cotter]

So a Z-drag is a block and tackle aerial approach to trackway laying?

Has this been employed before?

[ohiobill]

I don't know if it's been used before to hoax but it's how I would approach making tracks in a field of snow w/o leaving any other prints to be seen. (Obviously a crane/boomtruck/backhoe would be simpler but like Elbe the tracks would have to be reasonably close to a road to employ heavy equipment.) This set-up can be used by one person or 5 if you want your lines to be handled by others.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I was referring to your defense of the cross over step and how because you had used it in your travels it made it more likely to you that a bigfoot would do it. Most skeptical investigators would assume the opposite - they would feel that human size strides coupled with a known human movement would make it more likely to have been made by a human hoaxer - not less so as you posted.

Noted.

My comment was simply to indicate that the crossover step per se is not a red flag to disqualify the trackway. It is a technique I used to teach to climbing students and clients, a common method of efficiently negotiating difficult terrain. It would not be out of character for a biped to do this. In no way was my comment meant to be an endorsement of the trackway, but simply to note that a comment raising the issue as a red flag was not taking into consideration that this is a common method of movement.

Your description of the Z-drag system would require anchor points in trees or points higher than your own elevation. You are correct that this would only be workable for a short trackway. I keep thinking about the Minnesota trackway and how incredibly difficult it would be to hoax something like that, for such a long (3 mile) trackway, leaving no evidence of anything but the footprints in deep snow with long strides, "post holing" without disturbing the snow in between the tracks. Even using stilts wouldn't work IMHO, you just couldn't lift your legs high enough to clear the snow for each step, and any fall would result in "face plant snow angels" in the snow.

[Guest]

I have no problem with someone being wrong, but going back 10 days later, and saying you weren't wrong, that's kind of tricky for me to get a hold of.

So nobody should be allowed the leeway to change their mind based on further evolving researching and information?

Isn't that how science is supposed to work ?

[Guest]

I did not ask more then once and I never saw a straight answer, but I am not embarrassed to say I may not have seen something . OK, I will play along, so you don't bust an artery...

Not you personally, perhaps, but the Skeptics certainly have.

If I believe that DDA and DR (and the many others there) had doubts about the track way. How much doubt did they have and for what reasons? Why defend the trackway on the forum and make radio declarations about it if they had doubts? Why not just say here is what we have , the investigation is still ongoing and more info will follow in a week or so? Was it because they were trying to finger the hoaxer?

The problem is that what we were given in the Elbe threads were a series of "snapshots" of the investigation as it progressed. Despite the "red flags", there was apparently enough in the trackway that looked promising that the investigators were leaning towards it being genuine, even if they were not convinced. Only later, after all the evidence came in, was it absolutely clear that it was a hoax, and they said so.

But the Skeptics are trying to take the earlier "WIP" posts and play "GOTCHA!" with them, ignoring the clear and explicit statements of Derek and DDA about what they suspected and when.

So nobody should be allowed the leeway to change their mind based on further evolving researching and information?

Isn't that how science is supposed to work ?

Proponents are never allowed to be wrong or change their opinion. If they do, they forever lose credibility.

Skeptics, no matter how often they are wrong or change their opinions, never lose credibility.

Thus is the state of debate on the subject of BF.

[Guest baboonpete]

Not you personally, perhaps, but the Skeptics certainly have.

The problem is that what we were given in the Elbe threads were a series of "snapshots" of the investigation as it progressed. Despite the "red flags", there was apparently enough in the trackway that looked promising that the investigators were leaning towards it being genuine, even if they were not convinced. Only later, after all the evidence came in, was it absolutely clear that it was a hoax, and they said so.

But the Skeptics are trying to take the earlier "WIP" posts and play "GOTCHA!" with them, ignoring the clear and explicit statements of Derek and DDA about what they suspected and when.

Proponents are never allowed to be wrong or change their opinion. If they do, they forever lose credibility.

Skeptics, no matter how often they are wrong or change their opinions, never lose credibility.

Thus is the state of debate on the subject of BF.

Or they venerate the same people who continue to lack evidence, and nothing ever changes. Critical thinking is mandatory or this whole thing doesnt mean much.

[Guest]

I don't agree with Skeptics never being wrong, that's the whole point of skepticism, to adjust your world view as new data arrives. On the other hand, those proponents that are not witnesses just baffle me. I can't understand the continued motivation to believe as the years fly by with nothing conclusive ever found.

Unfortunately, hoaxing does reduce the credibility of the evidence. In the long run, it won't matter who thought it was real or a hoax, the fact that a bigfoot can't be definitively tied to the evidence is the crux of the problem.

[Guest]

The problem is that what we were given in the Elbe threads were a series of "snapshots" of the investigation as it progressed. Despite the "red flags", there was apparently enough in the trackway that looked promising that the investigators were leaning towards it being genuine, even if they were not convinced. Only later, after all the evidence came in, was it absolutely clear that it was a hoax, and they said so.

But the Skeptics are trying to take the earlier "WIP" posts and play "GOTCHA!" with them, ignoring the clear and explicit statements of Derek and DDA about what they suspected and when.

Mulder how does it make you feel that YOU are answering questions meant for the investigators who were on site?

The problem is that what we were given in the Elbe threads were a series of "snapshots" of the investigation as it progressed.

What was the problem with the snap shots? I saw them fine. How did the investigation progress and on what timeline? Were more trips made to the site?

Despite the "red flags", there was apparently enough in the trackway that looked promising that the investigators were leaning towards it being genuine, even if they were not convinced.

How can there be red flags and promising aspects of the same trackway? If you are not convinced, how can you lean toward it being genuine?

Only later, after all the evidence came in, was it absolutely clear that it was a hoax, and they said so.

Later when? What evidence came in later? Are we talking about the IP address verification?

But the Skeptics are trying to take the earlier "WIP" posts and play "GOTCHA!" with them,

Asking questions is not playing "gotcha"

ignoring the clear and explicit statements of Derek and DDA about what they suspected and when.

There was nothing clear and explicit. What did they suspect and when? Were these doubts mentioned before or after the IP address match?

Edited October 16, 2012 by JohnCartwright

[Guest]

Or they venerate the same people who continue to lack evidence, and nothing ever changes. Critical thinking is mandatory or this whole thing doesnt mean much.

You have yet to prove that they lack evidence. The hairs, the eyewitness reports, the scientific analyses of SOME tracks and trackways, etc.

All evidence. All scientifically examined.

All entirely UNrebutted by Skeptics who haven't put in ANY lab work to refute the conclusions of Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Pinker, Moore, Schaller, et al.

Critical thinking IS mandatory...maybe Skeptics should try engaging in it for a change instead of using the same tired, exposed and worthless psuedo-arguments.

Mulder how does it make you feel that YOU are answering questions meant for the investigators who were on site?

I'm happy to do it. Someone has to keep countering the misinformation spread by the Skeptics.

What was the problem with the snap shots? I saw them fine. How did the investigation progress and on what timeline? Were more trips made to the site?

All of that has been discussed in the appropriate threads. You know that.

How can there be red flags and promising aspects of the same trackway? If you are not convinced, how can you lean toward it being genuine?

Simple: it's called doing due diligence and employing critical thinking. Isn't that what Skeptics keep harping on and on about?

A very good hoax is exactly that: a GOOD hoax. That means that it must possess elements that give it a semblance of authenticity. Thus more study was called for and was conducted. The eventual conclusion reached, based on all available evidence both within the trackway and outside it was "hoax".

Later when? What evidence came in later? Are we talking about the IP address verification?

Derek, DDA, and others have already covered this.

Asking questions is not playing "gotcha"

Trying to pit quotes from early in the investigation against quotes from later in the investigation when the facts to hand were different is indeed playing "gotcha". And asking the same question over and over when answers are provided is even more game playing on the part of Skeptics and is disrespectful to the proponents.

There was nothing clear and explicit. What did they suspect and when? Were these doubts mentioned before or after the IP address match?

Both Derek and DDA have answered that multiple times. I have referred to that fact multiple times.

THIS is exactly what I am taking about when I call Skeptics disrespectful.

You asked a question, it was answered.

MOVE ON, unless you feel you have some proof to present that the answers were untruthful.

[Guest]

Well Mulder, I have to say that your POV on this particular incident exhibits more creative licensure than it does of critical thinking.

When you speak of evidence doesn't that same evidence have to pass a peer review of sorts sans sasquatch to definitively make the case? I see you quoting these same people over and over again, in regards to the validity of the evidence, but how many naysayers of equal qualifications were there? Why doesn't anyone ever quote those people assuming anyone got a second opinion on any of the evidence?

Unless someone confesses to a hoax, how do you know it's a hoax? My foot doesn't look like my sister's foot, or anyone else in the family's, so how do you distinguish a stomper print from a real bigfoot print if the original flesh and blood foot isn't there for comparison?

[Guest]

I'm happy to do it. Someone has to keep countering the misinformation spread by the Skeptics.

I know you are happy to do it, but how are you qualified to do it? How familiar with a field investigation process and reading tracks are you? I admit to be still learning.

All of that has been discussed in the appropriate threads. You know that.

No, sorry the answers do not match the timeline. And you cannot have doubts about a trackway AND lean towards it being genuine. It is one or the other.

Simple: it's called doing due diligence and employing critical thinking. Isn't that what Skeptics keep harping on and on about?

That is how everyone should do it, not only skeptics.

A very good hoax is exactly that: a GOOD hoax. That means that it must possess elements that give it a semblance of authenticity. Thus more study was called for and was conducted. The eventual conclusion reached, based on all available evidence both within the trackway and outside it was "hoax".

It is not that good of a hoax if someone with my level of track experience can spot the hoax from only looking at the pictures. Other people who are experienced in tracks came to the same conclusion by looking at the pictures. This is not chest thumping on my part, it is my trying to comprehend how men considered some of the top people in this field, could not see the hoax and a beginner could.

Derek, DDA, and others have already covered this.

Not well enough.

Trying to pit quotes from early in the investigation against quotes from later in the investigation when the facts to hand were different is indeed playing "gotcha". And asking the same question over and over when answers are provided is even more game playing on the part of Skeptics and is disrespectful to the proponents.

Different people will ask the same things unfortunately because they do not wade through the entire thread, Or they are not getting real answers. if someone gets tired of answering (typing) the same questions, it's simple to tell the person to go to (blank) post number and read.

Both Derek and DDA have answered that multiple times. I have referred to that fact multiple times.

The answers were dodgy and not convincing.

THIS is exactly what I am taking about when I call Skeptics disrespectful.

I am not a skeptic and respect is not given but earned.

You asked a question, it was answered.

The answers were dodgy and not convincing

MOVE ON, unless you feel you have some proof to present that the answers were untruthful.

The proof is there for everyone and yes I am moving on.

[Cotter]

On the other hand, those proponents that are not witnesses just baffle me.

This is a gem here CT. As I struggle personally with this as well being a proponent and a non-witness.

In the face of thread derailment, I'd like to comment on this, then bring 'er back on track.

Personally, from a young age I'd always been in the "boy, that would be cool if BF existed" camp, but dismissed the PGF as fake, and stories and accounts of BF being seen as the common mis-ID's, attention getters, liars, and hallucinators.

Then I had a good friend that confided a first hand visual experience with me along with other very strange happenings in the woods. So I started to wrestle with what this person could have seen. Fast forward a couple years and it happened again, this time with a co-worker that I worked with. As these people whom I've no reason to mis-trust (actually just the opposite) tell me this, I began to dig deeper in the phenom. Long story short, there have been too many friends and co-workers that I've spoken with that have seen one of these things for me to NOT actively entertain the possibility - nay, PROBABILITY that these types of creatures exist. I struggle often about this, but in the end it doesn't matter what you or I think because "I saw what I saw and you can't tell me it wasn't a BF" - (very common response when speaking with witnesses). Hear that enough from folks you trust with your life or the lives of your loved ones and it weighs magnitudes heavier than all the 'debunking' I read about on the internet.

It is difficult, and I feel John C's pain as a witness himself, to entertain some of these 'wild' claims, outright mis-ID's, and straight up lies as truth. This phenom hosts all sorts of whack-jobs - from both the proponent and skeptic side alike. SOMEWHERE in the midst of all that is good data, usable info for those of us that would like to go out and see one for themselves.

THAT is why I take issue to hoaxers (both skeptic and proponent) that target researchers - I find it offensive and disrespectful. It wastes time, money, and gets us nowhere into proving (or dispelling) the phenom that is BF.

John C - quick comment on this:

"It is not that good of a hoax if someone with my level of track experience can spot the hoax from only looking at the pictures. Other people who are experienced in tracks came to the same conclusion by looking at the pictures. This is not chest thumping on my part, it is my trying to comprehend how men considered some of the top people in this field, could not see the hoax and a beginner could."

I would merely caution that what you use as criteria for calling 'hoax' may not be 100% effective. I am barely learning the track ID fake vs real stuff myself, but all I am saying is that there may be real prints that exhibit the traits you clue in on for fake. Same thing goes the other way around. Of course, I've no idea what criteria you used to determine hoax, so I'm really just blowing some smoke here.

I really wish I had the time and motivation to put together a little "real or fake" type thread to test out folks' internet investigation on tracks. Keep everything within the realm of human feet, and then have folks render their guesses.