Cotter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I look at it the whole trackway as 6 questions. Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? We have 50% of the questions answered. The remaining are the most important however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I wonder if Mr. Perez has a lot of evidence that has been legally obtained that is not so tenuous or circumstantial as he relates in his newsletter or he could find himself up to his eyeballs in litigation. If I was Tontar I would be finding a good lawyer and finding out what the real evidence is. I hope those that are jumping on the "he is guilty" bandwagon know for certain that who they are calling out is really guilty because it is pretty easy to get a court order to obtain your information from this forum so you can be sued too. Fortunately there are screenshots aplenty which are available as evidence if posts are removed. I'm not making a judgement on guilt or innocence I am just asking that the lynch-mob mentality be reigned in a bit until the real evidence is put forth that removes all doubt one way or the other. Sued for what?Are those that spent time, money, and effort investigating the Elbe trackway due reimbursement? The answer to that is "yes." Will Tontar provide the funding? Won't hold my breath. Sad that someone would waste the time and money of earnest, honest individuals seeking to help provide answers to those of us curious enough to actively participate in this forum and other bigfoot activities. A pox upon his house. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 People can be sued for about anything these days. The only question is - whether you win or lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Kong Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 For some, the question is how much you win or lose. We have all seen people win a case and get $1 in damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I wonder if that's what Johnny Cash was thinking when he wrote "A Boy named Sue"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) You can only recoup damages. Maybe gas money. No way you get defamation of character, etc. The only thing a court case will do is get the perpetrator to fess up, or not. ETA: Is that Wolftrax I see viewing this thread? Welcome back bud! It's about time you came back into the fold. Edited October 24, 2012 by Gigantofootecus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Its a shame these guys didn't put there efforts, to something constructive like genuine research. It appears as if they have left the forum, they have not commented on the hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Agreed. Basically a prank gone bad. Like I said earlier, aside from some small financial forfeiture and some pride beating, thankfully no one got physically hurt or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Honestly I think what you've seen is the acknowledgement that there is no way to control the actions of the other 5 billion+ people who inhabit the earth and the realization that the knowledge to rule out hoaxes is much more important than the hoaxer's identity. From what I've seen in the same places AND the Bigfoot Times is an understanding that most researchers are woefully unprepared to combat hoaxing. I think the most telling quotes from Perez's article were "...and based on the need to be first at bat on the internet, it is also well documented that many can't-fool-me Bigfooters were taken in by the Elbe tracks" and "With so many investigators being fooled by deliberately faked Bigfoot tracks, one must openly wonder how skilled Bigfooters are in spotting a wooden nickel". I wonder if those who worry more about the "who" of a hoax aren't doing a disservice to this community by failing to focus on what's actually more important and whether or not they can change to better this community? Perez is just pushing the same line as our resident Skeptics...that the researchers WERE taken in, which is flat out wrong, and they've SAID so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) I wonder if Mr. Perez has a lot of evidence that has been legally obtained that is not so tenuous or circumstantial as he relates in his newsletter or he could find himself up to his eyeballs in litigation. If I was Tontar I would be finding a good lawyer and finding out what the real evidence is. I hope those that are jumping on the "he is guilty" bandwagon know for certain that who they are calling out is really guilty because it is pretty easy to get a court order to obtain your information from this forum so you can be sued too. Fortunately there are screenshots aplenty which are available as evidence if posts are removed. I'm not making a judgement on guilt or innocence I am just asking that the lynch-mob mentality be reigned in a bit until the real evidence is put forth that removes all doubt one way or the other. Tontar won't even answer the question of his involvement- neither here nor on the JREF. It doesn't sound like he's the kind of person who can tell a lie so he's just keeping quiet and dancing around the issue. If he can't do it on an internet forum then I doubt he would deny his involvement under oath. Perez seems to be rediculously confident about his claim, and it's getting more and more evident as to why. Tontar called it a "witch hunt", you call it a "lynch mob", I don't see it as being any different than what people have done in the past for outing a hoaxer. This is tame in comparison. Edited October 24, 2012 by roguefooter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Laying fake prints isn't 'proper' hoaxing. I say the real challenge is to try to hoax the Operation Persistence team. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I'm completely befuddled as to why people who've spent so much time trying to convince proponents that, for instance, the PGF is a hoax, that Patterson was a fraud, and countless other attempts to besmirch and 'out' people as hoaxers would suddenly form some sort of Hoaxers Union, where it's all in good fun, for the benefit of the community, and dang you all for trying to 'out' a hoaxer anyway. My head spins trying to keep up with the pretzeled logic of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Honestly I think what you've seen is the acknowledgement that there is no way to control the actions of the other 5 billion+ people who inhabit the earth and the realization that the knowledge to rule out hoaxes is much more important than the hoaxer's identity. From what I've seen in the same places AND the Bigfoot Times is an understanding that most researchers are woefully unprepared to combat hoaxing. I think the most telling quotes from Perez's article were "...and based on the need to be first at bat on the internet, it is also well documented that many can't-fool-me Bigfooters were taken in by the Elbe tracks" and "With so many investigators being fooled by deliberately faked Bigfoot tracks, one must openly wonder how skilled Bigfooters are in spotting a wooden nickel". I wonder if those who worry more about the "who" of a hoax aren't doing a disservice to this community by failing to focus on what's actually more important and whether or not they can change to better this community? What do you mean by "combat hoaxing"? To spot hoaxes or to stop them from happening? As far as I can tell, they were able to combat the Elbe hoax well enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I'm completely befuddled as to why people who've spent so much time trying to convince proponents that, for instance, the PGF is a hoax, that Patterson was a fraud, and countless other attempts to besmirch and 'out' people as hoaxers would suddenly form some sort of Hoaxers Union, where it's all in good fun, for the benefit of the community, and dang you all for trying to 'out' a hoaxer anyway. My head spins trying to keep up with the pretzeled logic of it. Some will go to any length to be "right". They became the very thing they set out to fight against. The irony is deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts