Incorrigible1 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Wasn't kidding, and the treachery comment was aimed your direction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) Nor was I. I have read a good part of this thread by now, and I find it incredibly ironic and hypocritical on so many levels. I can't even begin to list the various words used to describe "motivation", or how unrestrained people's imagination can be when trying to come up with whatever dastardly plan must have been afoot. Evil this, evil that, treachery, maliciousness, fraud... It's enlightening to see that in the absence of information, in the absence of a back story, in the absence of reality, where various people's minds and imaginations tend to go, what stories they tend to gravitate towards. Do they imagine the best, or do they imagine the worst. Truly enlightening. Edited October 24, 2012 by Tontar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Tontar, what do you think motivates hoaxers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 To be honest, I don't think there's any single motivation that you could paint them all with. I've seen a lot of what has been listed here, and while some of those might be valid, I think there are likely a lot of motivations that have been missed by a mile. I realize that this thread was started over one specific event, and that the focus is hard to shift to a more objective, broader perspective, but if there is any sincerity to your question, I'd suggest looking at all known hoaxes for more answers, and beyond that, explore the idea that many of the events that may have been considered authentic may be worthy of revisiting. Look at them all, and see if the same list of motivations that has been presented in this thread applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 24, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted October 24, 2012 ....But, in this particular situation, if this is a hoax (and I am willing to bet my life it is) I still don't know what we were all supposed to learn? There had to be an "end goal" - especially if the hoaxer was/is a part of this community. Why, don't you know, it would have been Act IV, Scene II in another "to be continued" docudrama to be released "soon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 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. Horsefeathers! DDA and Derekfoot have said for some time that they had doubts from Day 1 about Elbe. This is not "new" information. What evidence do you have to support your claim that they did not have doubts from Day 1 about Elbe? 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. Is this now confirmed that it's in print? Is there an online version of the article? I have read a good part of this thread by now, and I find it incredibly ironic and hypocritical on so many levels. I can't even begin to list the various words used to describe "motivation", or how unrestrained people's imagination can be when trying to come up with whatever dastardly plan must have been afoot. Evil this, evil that, treachery, maliciousness, fraud... We don't have to "imagine" it...we've been looking at it, and the one or ones perpetrating it. It's enlightening to see that in the absence of information, in the absence of a back story, in the absence of reality, where various people's minds and imaginations tend to go, what stories they tend to gravitate towards. Do they imagine the best, or do they imagine the worst. Truly enlightening. See above. There's nothing "imaginary" about the utter abandonment of everything Skeptics claim to prize (intellectual integrity, critical thinking, etc) when they decide to start hoaxing in order to play stupid little "gotcha" games and deliberately attempt to drag down the good name and reputation of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) Does printing something in the Bigfoot Times constitute confirmation? I think I recall Daniel proclaiming that the Skookum Cast was a fake in the BFT as well. Does that constitute confirmation? I think that the Silver Star Mountain event was printed as real, and then a revised conclusion later. Printing, whether on the internet or on paper, is what you're looking for for "proof"? FYI, Daniel has not spoken to me about any of this, and so far he's not willing or able to send me a copy of the article, I'm not sure which. Surely someone here subscribes to it, it would be nice to see it scanned and posted. I'm as curious as anyone else about what it says. Edited October 25, 2012 by Tontar Attacking the arguer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I plussed that as well Derek, it is pointless, and is more destructive than helpful to post any evidence on this forum at all now. All it does is serve as a launching point to start the the method of repetitive and persistence sabotage of any evidence. If your examination of any evidence starts from the default point of scoff-ism, and denial, then there really is no discussion of evidence. If evidence is created by hoaxers in an attempt to ridicule and discredit researchers, then again, there is no discussion of evidence, just malicious attack on those who attempt to bring validity and integrity to the study of this phenomena. I would discourage anyone from bringing forth any type of evidence to this board, no matter what it is, it will be declared a hoax. All I see is skeptics, scofftics, and so called proponents alike scrambling to be the first to proclaim something a hoax, then through ridicule, and criticism they are not even qualified to give, to maintain the conclusion of hoax, when most of the time their conclusion are unsupported and nothing more than unqualified opinion. For what its worth BFF, I think you need to take heed to what your seeing here, and think seriously about the direction this board is going in. Is this a Bigfoot discussion forum? Is this really a place to discuss the topic, share info, and present evidence? Why would anyone show us a picture of foot prints found in some remote place? Why would anyone share something cool or anomalous in any way here? So someone can say "hoax!!, and your darn fool if you think otherwise, why look at how stupidly you all walked into the Elbe trackway trick!" Suddenly now by default, any serious consideration of evidence is greeted with insinuations that you are mentally infirm some how to think any of it could be real. I feel sorry for the eyewitness's and the discomfort they must feel when they come here. John Carwright, I use to think there was some credit to your account, but I do not at all now. If you had seen what you claim you saw, you would not be the way you are today. Your own behavior discredits you, and I personally, will not read another post you make, I have no time for such things. And before anyone asks, no, I do not want to pay twenty dollars to go to the tar pit, so you can call me names, or attempt to ridicule me, or "Tell me what you really think", nor in any way am I interested in "even more and enlightened information for the premium members" This is a Bigfoot discussion board. JohnC, you're entitled to your opinion. However, it's not a "Discuss evidence in the manner that meets JohnC's approval" board. Do you seriously expect everyone to tow the line you feel is appropriate? Our membership is quite diverse, from hardcore skeptics to people that believe that Bigfoot is living in their doghouse. Also, we are not a research forum, we're a Bigfoot discussion board. Read the forum rules and you'll see that stated right upfront. I appreciate your suggestion that we consider the direction we're heading in, but what you fail to understand is that we cannot discern what is truth or hoax, nor can we limit the right of those that bother you just because you don't like it. That's not discussion, that's a limitation of our membership's point of view. We merely provide a place for discussion. It's the membership that that reads the claims, weighs the evidence and determines what to believe or if its truth or hoax. Our role is to provide an avenue for those interested in Bigfoot to share what they wish. If they choose to share the fact that they don't believe evidence presented, fine. If they choose to believe everything hook, line and sinker, that's fine, too. If individual researchers choose to withhold their evidence, what are we supposed to do about it? Really, what can we do about it? All are free to discuss what they wish - or to not present evidence as they wish - as long as they post according to the forum's rules and guidelines. If you'll read those rules and guidelines, you'll see nothing concerning us dictating the direction of the discussion, only the format. As far as you not wanting to pay to join the Premium Access, that's your choice. Nobody requires you to do so, although you're missing out on a great addition to the existing forum. Since you're not a member, you have no clue what goes on in The Tar Pit. You make it out to be what you think it's like, not what you know it's like. Isn't that hoaxing evidence in a way? What is your motivation to hoax? You've made statements about something you're not qualified to discuss, in my opinion. Yet in fairness, the BFF allows you to discuss your opinion according to the rules. How much more fair and impartial can we be? Do you want us to consider what direction we're heading in when it comes to what you want to post, or just what others post? Luckily for you, we allow all opinions. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the way it goes here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Does printing something in the Bigfoot Times constitute confirmation? I think I recall Daniel proclaiming that the Skookum Cast was a fake in the BFT as well. Does that constitute confirmation? I think that the Silver Star Mountain event was printed as real, and then a revised conclusion later. Printing, whether on the internet or on paper, is what you're looking for for "proof"? FYI, Daniel has not spoken to me about any of this, and so far he's not willing or able to send me a copy of the article, I'm not sure which. Surely someone here subscribes to it, it would be nice to see it scanned and posted. I'm as curious as anyone else about what it says. I don't have a scanner but I could probably try taking a clear photo, unless someone beats me to it. I **** sure won't type the thing out. An article doesn't constitute proof but it sure raises the flags and suspicions. It also doesn't help that you haven't once denied it since being accused weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 24, 2012 Tontar, if I can offer some extremely simple advice: At this point there are a lot on this board that think you are the Elbe hoaxer. If you didn't do it, say so now. Your post will look like this: "I didn't do the Elbe hoax." or 'I didn't do it." Right now, the fact that you have danced around this issue without denial isn't good, IOW if you continue to avoid this simple response any reasonable individual will believe you did it, and if the moderator rules were mine, I would have you banned permanently from the site. BTW this is not an attack, but a simple and friendly bit of advice. Moderators please remove this post if you deem any problems with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Alrighty then. I took pics of the article- they should be legible enough to read. http://i50.tinypic.com/2afdbmt.jpg http://i50.tinypic.com/35d2d7k.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Horsefeathers! DDA and Derekfoot have said for some time that they had doubts from Day 1 about Elbe. This is not "new" information. What evidence do you have to support your claim that they did not have doubts from Day 1 about Elbe? And that is all that was stated. I was waiting for them to elaborate more. No, it's not new information. It's NO information. Unlike you, who believes whatever some Bigfooters say, (and what a great critical thinking skill that is) See above answer: There was nothing to support anything. There was no information at all. So, Mulder, What do you think of Perez's version of the "investigation"? Was he fair or too harsh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) As far as Perez' investigation goes, it's hard to evaluate because he hasn't released all of his information. Right now I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because I have yet to hear any denials of involvement. Edited October 25, 2012 by AaronD Remove disrespectful content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I think that article is very incomplete. I know there is more evidence to show who knew what and when, in addition to the IP address evidence, but I will let those who developed that knowledge disclose it as they will. I think the article writer should have interviewed Derekfoot and DDA before labeling them as "fooled" or "taken in", as it directly contradicts their own statements to the contrary. And lastly I note that even if the named individual is not the person to physically lay down the tracks, he's certainly up to his neck in the perpetration of the larger operation, and is just as guilty as if he had. This story isn't over by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I think that article is very incomplete. I know there is more evidence to show who knew what and when, in addition to the IP address evidence, but I will let those who developed that knowledge disclose it as they will. So, you debated with me all this time and then you post the points I was trying to make to you. I am glad to see you finally get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts