Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) I am with DDA 1000% on all of this. Lets simplify just for a second. Again, none involved are paid for the research we try very hard to conduct. We all went out to see a track line. Yes, we were all pretty excited. Did we talk about it? Yes. Who'd we talk to? The Bigfoot community. Did we share things on this forum? Yes. Did we have to? No. Did we do it to everyones standards? No. To da.. bad. If you folks here that have a real problem with how we handled this would like step up and put us on the payroll, I'm quite sure all of us would strive to meet all your standards and criteria. Other than that, maybe you could cut a little slack for the people that get out from behind the computer from time to time and do the research so all you have something to talk about! My two cents, now back to deer hunting, much less drama! BTW, we have now had a chance to study the tracks in depth. Yes there are a lot of problems with them. but they will not be posted here if I have anything to do with it,nor will any of my future research. It's completely pointless. DR So much truth in such a short comment. Derek - if you offer classes in "getting your point across quickly" - I would like to sign up. Derek said: Did we talk about it? Yes. Who'd we talk to? The Bigfoot community. One would think the Bigfoot Community is where we would go to for discussion about the research and evidence we may be in the middle of or evaluating. But, instead many field researchers are sticking with those they know and trust and no further - which of course is the right of every person who gets out in the field and collects their own "evidence". I personally want to talk to people who can offer ideas and/or options - not deception and misinformation. At the end of the day, I would take the word of the person working on the investigation. It's called, "cutting out the middle man" - that is the quickest route to get to the information you want. But, in this particular situation - those with the information seem to be accused of knowing less than anyone... I find that amusing to be honest. If you folks here that have a real problem with how we handled this would like step up and put us on the payroll, I'm quite sure all of us would strive to meet all your standards and criteria. Ahh darn it, Derek, you just broke the first rule when discussing bigfoot. Never point out the obvious. LOL. Some may not like this - but it's true. Edited October 23, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 AMEN JOHNC!!! This is the EXACT reason I quit posting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 All fraud starts with a false statement. What is the false statement in this case? Is it: "Mr. Barackman, there are Bigfoot prints on the beach" Is that false? really? 'Your honor, the person said there were Bigfoot prints on the beach, and there were none.', "Really Counselor? Your client drove four hours to look at some Giant footprints, allegedly made by a GIANT HAIRY, UPRIGHT UNDISCOVERABLE BEAST, on a beach, and is upset because they weren't AUTHENTIC Bigfoot prints? Really? Please show me one AUTHENTIC Bigfoot print, be prepared to show your work" You don't know (along with everyone else who is not directly involved) what the exact motivation is behind this hoax is yet - do you? Near as I can tell there has been no final word from anyone what the entire "game" was about - and yes this was a game being played. So, until we know the entire story behind this - I would say the case is still being tried before the jury. Unless you have information about this situation you would like to share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) AMEN JOHNC!!! This is the EXACT reason I quit posting here. You hit the nail straight on its head!!! That is one of the best posts I've seen on this forum in a very long time. Unfortunately, I think your post will be widely ignored. My hat's off to you sir. Not much more I could add to this because you've said it all. X 2 Well......except the quitting posting part. :-) Edited October 23, 2012 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I did not assume they were liars. You assumed I thought they were because I asked questions. Practice what you preach. Oh no you don't. This is exactly what you said in post #279 ( ) : Regarding Bigfoot and Bigfooters, YES, I always proceed under the assumption that any statement given is false unless proven true. If a person gives a statement that you assume is false, then you are indeed assuming they are lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Let's put this in perspective - some researchers followed up on an anonymous email claiming bigfoot tracks. They begin investigating and nearly immediately they start a thread claiming the tracks are real (although they have immediate and serious doubts that they never post or mention in numerous posts or interviews w/other sites). They share pics electronically w/this forum and other researchers. During the investigation they miss critical and obvious clues that indicate a possible hoax and disregard all forum posts that point out such possibilities. Finally they get a on-scene researcher who within 10 minutes points out the same problems pointed out in the forum and finds the spot where the hoaxer put on the prosthetics. They become outraged that they've been hoaxed, deny that anyone is capable of seeing what they didn't see from internet pics, and say that this forum is a waste of their time and that they won't ever share their evidence again. Seriously...this forum IS the problem? They have no problem with the fact that the submission was anonymous? They do not see a problem w/coming to a conclusion prior to actually investigating? The same pictures they send to other researchers for input are not good enough for anyone on this forum to notice problems? The fact that they have a researcher who agrees w/the forum within ten minutes indicates to them that the forum members are armchair scoftics who have no idea what they are talking about even though some of the comments were from strong proponents? Their best option for future research is to never post to this forum again? Ok...great job guys - good luck! Please, please, please - anyone w/any trackway found close to Ohio please contact me so we can try a different approach to investigating footprints. With nothing more complicated than the addition of a middle-school science fair project checklist let's see if we can do the investigation utilizing this forum as a resource rather than an opponent. Pleaseeeeeeeeeee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Ohiobill said: anyone w/any trackway found close to Ohio please contact me so we can try a different approach to investigating footprints. With nothing more complicated than the addition of a middle-school science fair project checklist Well, when you put it like that.. Sure.. I can't imagine someone not jumping on the chance to be ridiculed for an entire day or more.. LOL. Will you be nice or is the sarcasm part of the package? Just curious. Edited October 23, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Oh no you don't. This is exactly what you said in post #279 ( ) : If a person gives a statement that you assume is false, then you are indeed assuming they are lying. False doesn't necessarily mean lying Mulder. Somebody can make a statement about something they think is true when in fact it isn't. Assuming something might be false is not calling someone a lair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Oh no you don't. This is exactly what you said in post #279 ( http://bigfootforums...270#entry643731) : If a person gives a statement that you assume is false, then you are indeed assuming they are lying. But in this case, no statement was even made until now. So I can't assume anything. Now that I have information, I can make up my own mind as to if I believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Well, when you put it like that.. Sure.. I can't imagine someone not jumping on the chance to be ridiculed for an entire day or more.. LOL. Will you be nice or is the sarcasm part of the package? Just curious. Melissa - Is any part of my first paragraph untrue from what was posted? If true, do YOU believe that this forum was the main problem in their investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) Following the bread crumbs in the trackway thread it seems to me that the end goal was to have the track declared as valid by the "pillars" of bigfoot research, then come out with a documentary showing how they fooled all the "experts". Remember the little snippet in the thread about "wondering" whether he was being watched by trail cams while he was at the trackway site? I understand the Bigfoot Times newsletter will have an article outing the hoaxer in the new issue. According to the Bigfoot Times, they're stating it was Tontar (front page with photo). Whether that's true or not I don't know, but they claim to have the evidence. It would also put into question his direct involvement with Kit's suit. Could it be another attempt to fool the 'experts'? Just for the record I'm not the one accusing him of anything, I'm just relaying an accusation, but either way his involvement in anything has now become questionable because of that. Edited October 23, 2012 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 If they have the evidence, why aren't they providing it? Derek said on Sharons' show they're not sure if the person they are talking to is the hoaxer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 According to the Bigfoot Times, they're stating it was Tontar (front page with photo). Whether that's true or not I don't know, but they claim to have the evidence. I just contacted Daniel Perez to ask if he would send me a copy of the article. He doesn't seem willing to. If anyone has a copy, it would be nice to see it. BTW, I hope that if BF is ever found, it's not as cannibalistic as it's human cousins. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Nor as treacherous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Yeah, no kidding!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts