Guest gershake Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 I'll say that judging just from what Tontar has written on the matter, I'm pretty certain he's not the hoaxer.
roguefooter Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 What's your take on his involvement in the hoax?
southernyahoo Posted October 24, 2012 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. You've discovered "agenda logic".
ohiobill Posted October 24, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012 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. And I'm willing to believe them but one of the major problems w/this investigation is that they didn't tell us, Perez, or anyone else they talked to in interviews. At best it shows a fundamental lack of transparency that is expected from science. A mathematical proof isn't just an equation and an answer - the part that matters is the work that gets you to the answer. Same w/any study - the results mean nothing if the researchers don't disclose their protocol. As I've asked many times - could the researchers have performed the same work w/the same conclusion but had a better outcome for them and this field by making a few changes? Do you think they needed to state "Yes, they're real" prior to actually investigating? Do you feel that all the problems pointed out in the Elbe thread were made up by skeptics even though some were brought forward by proponents? Things need to change more on their end - not on this forum. Credibility is key - we both give Dr. Meldrum more credence than each other but now what am I supposed to think about the researchers involved in this and any work they've been involved in? In all honesty - do you think that this investigation was performed as well as it could have been? Do you think that by NOT bringing evidence forward to this forum it will be MORE believable because no one knows anything about it or how much scrutiny it was put under?
Guest Posted October 24, 2012 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. ;-) Yes, lol I agree. A real hoaxer should be willing to put it on the line. Proper rules should be agreed to as to Hoaxer and Hoaxee I think,if these things be a gotcha test, as to how long does the hoaxee have to correctly identify the hoax as such, how much visible excitement should be allowed, how much extraraneous information (such as other non physical related evidence like I.P. adresses, suspicions of the reporting individuals etc) should be allowed to be considered, and what tentative statements supporting the validity of the hoax should be allowed before deducting points from the final grade of the hoaxee. Hoaxers would be required to visually hoax the Operation Persistence team to get their Hoaxers' Union (I.H.O) card.
TimB Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I wonder if that's what Johnny Cash was thinking when he wrote "A Boy named Sue"? Didn't Neil Diamond write that song? Tim B.
Cotter Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I'll say that judging just from what Tontar has written on the matter, I'm pretty certain he's not the hoaxer. Hi Gershake. I would be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion. Thx
Drew Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) This is what Tontar said at JREF Also, in jest, following the prodding of another BFF member, I posted something that said I made the London tracks, wasn't exactly happy with how they turned out, so I came up with a better process for making feet, and then made the Elbe tracks, and once finished with those went back to making my Patty replication suit. It was a bit of an elaborate post, spinning a broad yarn, and I mentioned at the end that it was fiction. Apparently Moneymaker was pointed at it, which led to his posting what he posted on Twitter. It's truly been an inconvenient soap opera for me, which is why I tend to avoid commenting on it. Which is in reference to this post at BFF http://bigfootforums...210#entry634642 Now, Moneymaker said, the guy who did it, was building a PGF sculpture, it almost looks like Moneymaker misread the BFF post, and took it out of context. Once this happened, everyone jumped to the conclusion that it was Tontar. But it is clearly a work of fiction, as he says in the BFF post. I think the IP address thing is not real, but they can't point to Tontar's fictional story as evidence that he was the hoaxer, so someone said 'We found his IP address', which we know from Gigantor, isn't even possible. Edited October 25, 2012 by Drew
southernyahoo Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Why won't hoaxers step up to claim their work? Is it that they need to perpetuate uncertainty about evidence than to put it to bed? What is the benefit if a skeptic hoaxes.?
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) I think the IP address thing is not real, but they can't point to Tontar's fictional story as evidence that he was the hoaxer, so someone said 'We found his IP address', which we know from Gigantor, isn't even possible. Gigantor was promptly debunked by others. IP addresses CAN be tracked and isolated to specific computers. Law Enforcement does it all the time, and anyone with the right skills and/or software can do it. http://www.informit....le.aspx?p=24263 Edited October 25, 2012 by Mulder
Cotter Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Actually Drew, I think you should reread that exchange about IP addy's. With all due respect to gigantor, I think he was shown to be mistaken.
Guest gershake Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Besides what Drew just posted, Tontar's "non-denial denial" also included "if you read very carefully what I have written so far, you will find the answer". What he had written until that part included "I WISH I had been involved! They should have called me before going through with it..." So unless he is dishonest, that means that he was not involved. I think that he might know who WAS involved, though.
Guest MikeG Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I find all this speculation about a fellow forum member abhorrent. There are rules against calling each other liars and hoaxers, and frankly I can't see any justification for bending them in this case. IP addresses shouldn't be a matter of public knowledge or debate either. There are dozens of imaginable scenarios where someone might be connected to events through their IP address but not actually be involved, and this hounding of a long-standing forum member seems to take no account of those possibilities. This doesn't look good, people, and those with any scruples might do well to back off a bit here. Mike
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Never mind.. I found it. LOL. Edited October 25, 2012 by Melissa
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 Mike, are you saying that when there is evidence someone is a hoaxer (and in this case there IS evidence...more even than has been publicly disclosed to date) that we should remain silent? I would agree that baseless accusations of dishonesty would be illegitimate, but that isn't the case here.
Recommended Posts