The Motivation To Hoax

[ohiobill]

Melissa - I think it's obvious from the Elbe thread and this one that the researchers and their supporters were either unaware of or were willing to overlook the lack of independent toe movement, short stride lengths, monolithic print edges, indications that there was substantial toe pressure imparted rather than a mid-tarsal break, shortcomings in the reporting/investigation process, and problems coming to a conclusion on the evidence prior to investigating if indeed they noticed it themselves at the time and just didn't post their concerns. I think the obvious lesson to be learned is to curb the proclaimations of proof before actually investigating. I believe DR has posted several times that he has learned something so I am unclear as to why you feel there is nothing to learn?

I don't know who did the hoaxing and whether or not they belong to this forum and personally I don't care. I can't understand why it would matter to the investigation itself? The learning experience will start when DDA & DR start a thread detailing what they learned and what to look for when investigating.

DDA & DR made mistakes and should be called on them - it's how we all learn. It doesn't always feel great to have your mistakes pointed out but until humans stop making them we will ALL have to deal with it. I'm not sure what help you expect from the hoaxer? If they come forward later today and say "I made a foam foot and glued it to my boot and went walking in some mud before sending an anonymous email in" what have you learned? What incredible insight would you gain? Are there any obvious problems you see with the system as it is now that can be improved upon whether or not the hoaxer comes forward? Should we wait and wring our hands and cry until then? It appears that all YOU want to do is wait and speculate - big difference from what could be accomplished. As I said earlier - ultimately it's up to each individual researcher to determine the legacy they leave and what their impact is in the search for bigfoot.

Excellent Bill. I agree that in some cases hoaxers can be likened to criminals.

I'm surprised you feel that way.

Yes, some hoaxers are hardened criminals - they're called forgers.

Edited October 22, 2012 by ohiobill

[Guest]

Melissa - I think it's obvious from the Elbe thread and this one that the researchers and their supporters were either unaware of or were willing to overlook the lack of independent toe movement, short stride lengths, monolithic print edges, indications that there was substantial toe pressure imparted rather than a mid-tarsal break, shortcomings in the reporting/investigation process, and problems coming to a conclusion on the evidence prior to investigating if indeed they noticed it themselves at the time and just didn't post their concerns. I think the obvious lesson to be learned is to curb the proclaimations of proof before actually investigating. I believe DR has posted several times that he has learned something so I am unclear as to why you feel there is nothing to learn?

Are you speaking for everyone? You sure don't speak for me. I think you play a dangerous game when you "think" you know what others are thinking. I do not think either DDA or Derek Randalls are willing to overlook anything when it comes to information about hoaxing. Also, I am ASKING for the "teachable moment" in this situation - not sure how that is being missed. I know I typed it close to a dozen times. You keep bringing up things, that as researchers, we already know about - but not even you can answer to any of this - unless you specifically are the hoaxer (and I am not saying you are). So, there is nothing to learn until these people speak up. We can speculate all day long, but we can't really say with any certainty why and how without the facts.

Sure there is something to learn. But, I just answered my own question - this started on or around Sept 17th - so we are well into a month of this.. With the hoaxer not stepping forward, I have no idea what I am supposed to learn - other than Bigfoot Tracks can be hoaxed.... Thanks - but I already knew that - and probably 95% of the community already knew that.

I don't know who did the hoaxing and whether or not they belong to this forum and personally I don't care. I can't understand why it would matter to the investigation itself? The learning experience will start when DDA & DR start a thread detailing what they learned and what to look for when investigating.

I do care. I would like to think I can trust this community - to not intentionally hoax me or someone else who is simply minding their business and going about something they enjoy. Can you not see the dilemma here? I sure can and so do others.

DDA & DR made mistakes and should be called on them - it's how we all learn. It doesn't always feel great to have your mistakes pointed out but until humans stop making them we will ALL have to deal with it. I'm not sure what help you expect from the hoaxer? If they come forward later today and say "I made a foam foot and glued it to my boot and went walking in some mud before sending an anonymous email in" what have you learned? What incredible insight would you gain? Are there any obvious problems you see with the system as it is now that can be improved upon whether or not the hoaxer comes forward? Should we wait and wring our hands and cry until then? It appears that all YOU want to do is wait and speculate - big difference from what could be accomplished. As I said earlier - ultimately it's up to each individual researcher to determine the legacy they leave and what their impact is in the search for bigfoot.

Also there is the assumption this is simply about the track way. I personally think it's about more than that. A mistake does not (and never has) equaled a lie or intentionally misleading. Why is it okay to protect and defend the hoaxers right to privacy and anonymity. I have never known DDA or Derek to NOT accept their own mistakes and fully discuss them. Maybe we should be allowing these men the same time to go over their work - that some want to give this hoaxer(s). I love how the alleged hoaxers (who have said nothing for more than a month) are allowed all this leeway but the researchers should have known everything from the second they laid eyes on these tracks - and busted them from the email.. LOL.

I wonder when bigfoot researchers were required to be mind readers too.. Sorry, just had to inject some humor. LOL.

[Guest]

Also there is the assumption this is simply about the track way. I personally think it's about more than that.

For me it was always just about the track way. It does not matter to me who the investigators were. The same questions I asked would have been asked to any investigator. I stated from the beginning the tracks looked like obvious stomper tracks. DDA and DR defended why they thought the tracks were legit. I read along with the thread for 10 days, Then the hoax was revealed and they are gone.

A mistake does not (and never has) equaled a lie or intentionally misleading.

Absolutely correct.

Why is it okay to protect and defend the hoaxers right to privacy and anonymity.

Who is or was defending the hoaxer? Not me.

I have never known DDA or Derek to NOT accept their own mistakes and fully discuss them.

There has not even been any clear discussion from them since the hoax was revealed, so how could it be determined if a mistake was even made?

Maybe we should be allowing these men the same time to go over their work

Of course, they can take all the time they need.

[ohiobill]

Are you speaking for everyone? You sure don't speak for me. I think you play a dangerous game when you "think" you know what others are thinking. I do not think either DDA or Derek Randalls are willing to overlook anything when it comes to information about hoaxing. Also, I am ASKING for the "teachable moment" in this situation - not sure how that is being missed. I know I typed it close to a dozen times. You keep bringing up things, that as researchers, we already know about - but not even you can answer to any of this - unless you specifically are the hoaxer (and I am not saying you are). So, there is nothing to learn until these people speak up. We can speculate all day long, but we can't really say with any certainty why and how without the facts.

Sure there is something to learn. But, I just answered my own question - this started on or around Sept 17th - so we are well into a month of this.. With the hoaxer not stepping forward, I have no idea what I am supposed to learn - other than Bigfoot Tracks can be hoaxed.... Thanks - but I already knew that - and probably 95% of the community already knew that.

Are you one of the researchers who investigated this track find or a poster to this forum who overlooked the problems noted within? I'm not trying to speak for you - in fact I'm opposed to most of what you have said in regards to this topic and your apparent helplessness in the face of hoaxers. There really is nothing to learn from the hoaxers, we have a pretty good idea of how they did it (poorly enough to be called on it over internet pictures) but there is still a lot to learn from the incident itself - if folks are willing to learn.

I do care. I would like to think I can trust this community - to not intentionally hoax me or someone else who is simply minding their business and going about something they enjoy. Can you not see the dilemma here? I sure can and so do others.

Great, you care - how does that make a difference in the investigation? How would your actions investigating a trackway differ between a trackway you felt might be hoaxed by a member of this forum vs. a trackway you felt was hoaxed by a member of another forum? As you state any trackway can be hoaxed. The only solution is to prepare yourself for possible hoaxes from any community.

Also there is the assumption this is simply about the track way. I personally think it's about more than that. A mistake does not (and never has) equaled a lie or intentionally misleading. Why is it okay to protect and defend the hoaxers right to privacy and anonymity. I have never known DDA or Derek to NOT accept their own mistakes and fully discuss them. Maybe we should be allowing these men the same time to go over their work - that some want to give this hoaxer(s). I love how the alleged hoaxers (who have said nothing for more than a month) are allowed all this leeway but the researchers should have known everything from the second they laid eyes on these tracks - and busted them from the email.. LOL.

I am not addressing anything you think may be "more" than the trackway or it's investigation. Couldn't care less - has no bearing on me or any future investigations as you or I would have no control over it in any way. Most reasonable people understand that they can't control the actions of others.

I wonder when bigfoot researchers were required to be mind readers too.. Sorry, just had to inject some humor. LOL.

I don't think you have to resort to mind-reading to produce some positive changes from this investigation. An easy one would be to refuse to investigate anonymous claims - simple and directly increases the possibility of being outed for hoaxing. The names don't have to be released to the public but identities should be verified by the researchers prior to going and once on site and it's obviously dependent upon the researchers being trusted to do their job diligently. It obviously works to some extent - HRP's grooming video is a good example. That's why researcher credibility is important - it influences perceptions.

More ideas from the Elbe trackway investigation?

1 - What about getting with the admins and coming up w/a format for evidence investigations? Stricter moderation and/or possibly a minimum post amount or PMP membership before being allowed to post in the thread? Might make investigators less likely to face inappropriate comments but still allow for spirited discussion of any evidence brought forth.

2 - Getting researchers to start threads about investigation techniques and possibly learn something along the way. Refuse to allow a researcher to start an evidence investigation thread if they haven't already done a thread about investigation technique of some kind - gives admins/members a chance to decide if the investigator is competent and minimizes the possibility of a drive-by hoaxing.

What ideas do you have? Rather wait & speculate?

[Guest thermalman]

Quote: What ideas do you have? Rather wait & speculate?

Seems contradictory and hypocritical coming from a skeptic, who forms views and opinions without any solid evidence or proof to back their remarks. Totally skeptic!!

[Guest]

Yeah researchers are not allowed to get excited or be human. We must be machines of unfailing logic. Skeptics what are your restrictions?

[ohiobill]

As has been said numerous times and by numerous people on this forum - being skeptical doesn't preclude the existence of bigfoot.

It just makes getting hoaxed less likely - not impossible.

Of course researchers can get excited but I would suggest that they temper it w/a healthy dose of skepticism prior to proclaiming that they're real BEFORE investigating next time. They still would have found out they were fake but they wouldn't have to deal with being hoaxed at all for whatever amount of time it was. It didn't have to be this way - they brought this upon themselves w/their own actions. I didn't hoax it and I didn't force them to make claims on the internet.

Do you think skeptical researchers don't get excited too? They restrict their early excitement until they have actual results. Great findings in labs are thrown out all the time due to contamination. Drugs are never released to the public even though they had great initial findings in trials but had problems in widespread studies. The difference is in how often you hear of it, not that it doesn't happen.

[Guest thermalman]

Quote: "Do you think skeptical researchers don't get excited too? They restrict their early excitement until they have actual results."

Not so true. They are extremely quick to condemn or refute any findings because none of the results conform to the skeptics thinking. If you want proof, re-read any posts that have been derailed.

[ohiobill]

Yes Therm, they do get as excited as any bigfoot proponet and yes, they probably refuted them as proof and were correct in doing so like in the Elbe trackway which is a hoax. Instead of generalizing to me about every skeptics behavior in every thread why not point out a specific topic you want ME to answer about and I will do so in that thread. Life is like a multiple choice test - most answers that contain every or all are wrong.

[Guest]

Have we really reached a point in this field of research where can only teach - by deception?

I have worked as a paralegal for a number of years - BUT.

I was not taught how to work for an attorney who handles criminal law - by being locked up.

I was not taught how to work for an attorney who handles family law - by being forced through a divorce.

I was not taught how to work for an attorney who handles tax law - by having my world turned upside down by the IRS.

Thank god I worked for Attorneys who were willing to teach me through kindness and compassion. Thank god I had good Professors.

Seriously - is this all we can come up with now? Teaching through deception and the destruction of a persons reputation.. That's pretty sad.

[ohiobill]

No it's not the only way and it's probably not the best way but it happens in other fields as well. I think it probably will be a lesson well learned and earned. Should any field that can be hoaxed give up? Should social workers stop helping people just because there are some welfare abusers? Should Dr's stop writing pain pill prescriptions because some patients trick them into it so they can sell or abuse theirs? How many times have the lawyers you work for been hoaxed? Did they quit or did they say whoa, I won't fall for that one again and keep going? How many times have you been hoaxed in your bigfoot career? You learn from what you encounter in life or you continue to make the same mistakes. The important thing isn't who hoaxes you, it's what you learn from it.

[Guest]

ohiobill... You stated :

1. Anyone on this forum could make those tracks using a prosthetic attached to a shoe or boot.

Please show us your own attempt at fabricating tracks, casts or a trackway that looks like the ones at Elbe.

2. Lack of independent toe movement,

Unless you directly observed the tracks and casts, how are you coming to this conclusion or side with those proclaiming it?

3. short stride lengths,

All the measurements, photos and video we made has not be released... So where are you getting this limitation? or Are you claiming that Bigfoot is incapabile of making short strides?

4. monolithic print edges,

Enter MC I know what "monolithic print edges" are. I didn't see an of those there and no one else who was there has stated they saw them. Sounds like armchair quarterbacking from the uninformed. Or was MC involved?

5. indications that there was substantial toe pressure imparted rather than a mid-tarsal break,

Interesting, denigrating these tracks as hoaxed with a term used by a scientist who studies the subject and disregarded as being knowledgable on the topic. Once again, sounds like MC jargon.

6. shortcomings in the reporting/investigation process,

We, the investigators, owe nothing to anyone... So I really don't know where you are coming from with this or how it helps the case you are trying to make.

7. problems coming to a conclusion on the evidence prior to investigating,

I must be a bit dense or something, cause I don't understand this one at all. We had a problem coming to a conclusion, prior to investigating? Well duh!

8. and problems in how this community and researchers reacts to criticism.

Really?! And criticism should come from who? Someone 3000 miles away, who only looks at a select few 2D pictures that we released? What kind of criticism can some one from say, Viginia say about tracks discovered mere hours before hand and on the opposite coast? Or from someone who should question his own motivations.

Everyday, since the first visit to the track site, traffic and weather degraded that evidence. I would put more trust in the early, rather than later assessments, unless the later were actually the very first.

There was a guy from Indiana or Ohio who answered Dr. Krantz statement that he had several fool proof characteristics that he used to tell him the difference between a real and fake cast. The man carved out a foot, used walnut shells to make dermal like surface textures, made up a story and sent it to the good doctor. The doctor proclaimed it real, by his secret criteria. The man from Ohio then went public with his hoax... But to my knowledge, has never shown a shred of proof that he made the cast. Who learned from this? Why was it done? It was blatantly malicisious in concept and execution, but failed in the attempt to discredit by not documenting.

We stated in the original thread that we were not stopping the investigation. We were just not going to be releasing anything to those who would attempt such hoaxing with any information we attained from Elbe. Where would you draw the line in who gets our report and who doesn't? We spent the time, the money at the site... I think it is our call and no amount of pressure from people is going to change that.

Edited October 23, 2012 by damndirtyape

[Guest]

Really?! And criticism should come from who?

Yes sir Mr. DDA, really.

Criticism can come from anyone on a forum. Are you saying that not everyone has a right to question your claims? If you show your work, you should be prepared and able to deal with criticism. I would think someone with your experience could deal with it and has before. You seemed to be dealing with the criticism very well at the begininng of the original thread.

Someone 3000 miles away, who only looks at a select few 2D pictures that we released? What kind of criticism can some one from say, Viginia say about tracks discovered mere hours before hand and on the opposite coast? Or from someone who should question his own motivations.

Well correct me if I am wrong, but this may be directed at me.

Yes Mr DDA sir, I did question the authenticity of the tracks from only looking at 2D pictures you released. I said they looked like stomper prints and it turns out they are stomper prints. So what? Is this sour grapes? Since you may have questions as to my motivation for saying the tracks were fakes before it was even revealed they were faked. Please feel free to say what you think my motivation was.

It was your time and money and you have the say about who you share your report with

[ohiobill]

ohiobill... You stated :

1. Anyone on this forum could make those tracks using a prosthetic attached to a shoe or boot.

Please show us your own attempt at fabricating tracks, casts or a trackway that looks like the ones at Elbe.

2. Lack of independent toe movement,

Unless you directly observed the tracks and casts, how are you coming to this conclusion or side with those proclaiming it?

3. short stride lengths,

All the measurements, photos and video we made has not be released... So where are you getting this limitation? or Are you claiming that Bigfoot is incapabile of making short strides?

4. monolithic print edges,

Enter MC I know what "monolithic print edges" are. I didn't see an of those there and no one else who was there has stated they saw them. Sounds like armchair quarterbacking from the uninformed. Or was MC involved?

5. indications that there was substantial toe pressure imparted rather than a mid-tarsal break,

Interesting, denigrating these tracks as hoaxed with a term used by a scientist who studies the subject and disregarded as being knowledgable on the topic. Once again, sounds like MC jargon.

6. shortcomings in the reporting/investigation process,

We, the investigators, owe nothing to anyone... So I really don't know where you are coming from with this or how it helps the case you are trying to make.

7. problems coming to a conclusion on the evidence prior to investigating,

I must be a bit dense or something, cause I don't understand this one at all. We had a problem coming to a conclusion, prior to investigating? Well duh!

8. and problems in how this community and researchers reacts to criticism.

Really?! And criticism should come from who? Someone 3000 miles away, who only looks at a select few 2D pictures that we released? What kind of criticism can some one from say, Viginia say about tracks discovered mere hours before hand and on the opposite coast? Or from someone who should question his own motivations.

Everyday, since the first visit to the track site, traffic and weather degraded that evidence. I would put more trust in the early, rather than later assessments, unless the later were actually the very first.

There was a guy from Indiana or Ohio who answered Dr. Krantz statement that he had several fool proof characteristics that he used to tell him the difference between a real and fake cast. The man carved out a foot, used walnut shells to make dermal like surface textures, made up a story and sent it to the good doctor. The doctor proclaimed it real, by his secret criteria. The man from Ohio then went public with his hoax... But to my knowledge, has never shown a shred of proof that he made the cast. Who learned from this? Why was it done? It was blatantly malicisious in concept and execution, but failed in the attempt to discredit by not documenting.

We stated in the original thread that we were not stopping the investigation. We were just not going to be releasing anything to those who would attempt such hoaxing with any information we attained from Elbe. Where would you draw the line in who gets our report and who doesn't? We spent the time, the money at the site... I think it is our call and no amount of pressure from people is going to change that.

DDA -

1. I am seriously considering starting a thread on what it would take to hoax a trackway. Just remember you should be careful what you wish for!

2. Independent toe movement was limited in the pics I saw which have conveniently disappeared from the thread making it harder to point out.

3. Stride length was covered here AND on Cliff's website - within human range which is an obvious indication of a possible hoax brought up by me and others in the thread but doesn't preclude a bigfoot from taking small strides for some unknown reason.

4. I don't know who you mean by "enter MC" - what is their forum name? As far as a monolithic edge being present it was noted and plain to see along some of the toes in some of the prints that again are inconveniently removed.

5. Interesting how? I have read Dr. Meldrum's work - I just don't agree with all of it. I find his premise - that an alternative anatomy has to be present to support the weight of a bigfoot unnecessary. I see 400lb people playing pro football. I see 400lb plus people on the biggest loser doing high impact exercise w/no apparent problems. The evidence I'm most pointed to is PGF where Patty is estimated to be around 6' 3" and to my eye wouldn't weigh anywhere near the crazy estimates given and would probably not even weigh 400lb. I know it seems crazy that someone could disagree w/Dr. Meldrum but the majority of his peers don't agree with him either. Regardless - heavy toe-off is contra-indicated in real bigfoot tracks by Dr. Meldrum. You can't have it both ways.

6. You owe me nothing - you owe the people who look up to you a good investigation which includes a process which limits hoaxes.

7. The problem WAS coming to a conclusion prior to investigating - "Yes, They're Real" shouldn't have been in the title but rather in the credits.

8. Criticism should come from any member of this forum who is able to post and notices a problem. That's not the problem - the problem is mainly in how it was handled. It shouldn't come as a shock to you that other people have opinions, experience, and perspectives different from you. Any honest researcher should welcome criticism of their work/process even if they don't enjoy it. It's how you learn and get better. I find it condescending that you believe that it's impossible for anyone but you to make a determination of authenticity and then only in person. Multi-billion dollar companies and colleges use the internet to get important work done by examining photos long distance. I understand you emailed pics to other researchers as well for their input? (Shocker Alert - It turns out it is possible to see the details in the photos.) If you truly believe you did a great job on this investigation and need make no changes in your process then continue on as you've been doing.

I'm not sure of the hoaxer's motivation in this or any other non-monetary hoax. I don't care because I know I can't control other folks actions. I limit myself to what I can control - if you want to crusade against hoaxing feel free. I would suggest that it will be more productive to reduce your chances of being hoaxed rather than trying to influence or control the 5 billion people who could possibly hoax you. I think you learned something from this hoax - DR states he has as well. If you think that the most important lesson learned here was to keep all your information close to your vest then I will have to disagree and wish you good luck. If you don't want to release your report to me or the forum at large that's fine with me - shortsighted almost certainly but still your perogative. I believe that Dr's Meldrum & Fahrenbach have already published more than enough to meet the needs of any hoaxer. Jimmy Chilcutt's work is available also and would just be icing on the hoaxing cake. See - no pressure from me at all.

[Guest]

No it's not the only way and it's probably not the best way but it happens in other fields as well. I think it probably will be a lesson well learned and earned.

Well whether you realize it or not, that is what it sounds like you are arguing for. Well learned and well earned? Who will decide when they have "learned" or "earned" enough? Yes. And in most circles - as soon as someone is out money - it can be called fraud.

Should any field that can be hoaxed give up?

Nope, but I bet they don't pat the hoaxer on the back and say "Hey, great job!!" In most professions - hoaxing can lead to a whole host of problems - financial and criminal.

Should social workers stop helping people just because there are some welfare abusers? Should Dr's stop writing pain pill prescriptions because some patients trick them into it so they can sell or abuse theirs? How many times have the lawyers you work for been hoaxed?

Interesting - again great examples of "hoaxing" that can lead to time away from home in a nice room with bars and/or big fines. Doctors can even lose their license to practice if they are found to be over prescribing. Using the example of a lawyer - really doesn't count - lawyers are paid to do the job whether they believe the person or not. That is the way the law works.

Did they quit or did they say whoa, I won't fall for that one again and keep going?

Yes, some lawyers have left practice. I have seen it happen. There are some attorneys that do have a conscious and practice other types of law.

You learn from what you encounter in life or you continue to make the same mistakes. The important thing isn't who hoaxes you, it's what you learn from it.

I agree with you on the first part of your comment. But, I learned an awful lot in College - and not once did they feel the need to deceive myself or classmates. They talked to me like I was a person capable of understanding English. They must have been pretty sure I would get it (or not) based on their instruction and not deception. It is possible you know.

I guarantee you right now, the only thing people are learning is - you can't even trust people in your own community. That is sad.