Drew Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 "your Honor, we have evidence that this person committed a Breaking and Entering, but we cannot tell the jury what that evidence is, or how it was obtained, we DO have the evidence however, scout's honor." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 "But - your honor, and ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, let me tell you how the homeowner is responsible for the break in.............. Nevermind WHO did it - if the homeowner had just done x and y - their home never would have been broken into.." Who did it - is not important - when someone could have stopped it to begin with. Thank you members of the Jury and Your Honor.. LMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dozy Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 When did it become illegal to walk along a river bank in oversized footware? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 "your Honor, we have evidence that this person committed a Breaking and Entering, but we cannot tell the jury what that evidence is, or how it was obtained, we DO have the evidence however, scout's honor." Wrong. At least some of the evidence (the IP addy) HAS been disclosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 You know what I find interesting - are the people who keep saying - the investigators involved don't know who did it................. People who have zero connection inside the investigation. How can you say things like that with no inside information? How can they possibly be so certain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I said that because that's what Derek said on Sharon Lee's last show. He said they aren't sure the person who sent the email is the actual hoaxer or what kind of involvement they had, unless you know something Derek doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) How long ago was Sharon's show? Edited to add: I just looked it up. Sharons first show with Derek was Sept 21 - and was about the Trackway. The last show - that was archived was October 10th... Today is the 25th.. Lots in this community can change in less than 24 hours. So, unless the investigators have spoken about this somewhere how could anyone know the investigators involved don't know who the hoaxer(s) are and be so certain about it??? Edited October 25, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Ok, let's put it simply: If Tontar actually made the trackway, then obviously he is the hoaxer. If Tontar only sent the email (as evidenced by the IP address), then he is still part of the hoax, and is therefore a hoaxer. The best course of action at this point would be a full out statement from the subject, detailing exactly what he did or did not do, and addressing the evidence against him. Not in Premium, where only the paid members can see it, but publicly. As it stands, half-hearted "I was only kidding" and other generally non-denial denials have little credibility, given both the evidence in this case, and other events involving the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dozy Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Do we know that the IP resolves to Tontar, though? If it's a domestic connection, that's one thing, but if it's a WIFI access point, or cafe, or academic institution, that's something else entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 AND - to follow up. Derek said this on Sept 29th in the Elbe Trackway thread in post number 326: At this point it doesn't matter if they come forward or not. We now know exactly who's responsible for submitting the two initial reports in the beginning. Now it's just a question of motivation and involvement. This information will not be released at this time, or possibly ever, pending the parties willingness to share information and hopeful cooperation. To keep things in perspective, this is not a witch hunt, or world peace, we simply would like more information so we can avoid throwing more time and money toward this seemingly hoaxed Track line. DR Bolding mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I find all this speculation about a fellow forum member abhorrent. We are supposed to be a respectful community sharing information, no? The utter lack of respect for ALL the other forum members that have asked 'the question' is abhorrent. We have information shared via several outlets now that point to a member, that STILL has not outright denied involvement. If anything, his posts have only further fueled said speculation. This member has the end all be all opportunity to put this to bed. Yet he doesn't. As a 'long standing forum member' as you put it, I would think he would understand the implications of his behavior. Mike - you don't think that's a little fishy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 How long ago was Sharon's show? Edited to add: I just looked it up. Sharons first show with Derek was Sept 21 - and was about the Trackway. The last show - that was archived was October 10th... Today is the 25th.. Lots in this community can change in less than 24 hours. So, unless the investigators have spoken about this somewhere how could anyone know the investigators involved don't know who the hoaxer(s) are and be so certain about it??? The claims that the researchers knew who the hoaxer(s) is started long before the 10th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 AND - to follow up. Derek said this on Sept 29th in the Elbe Trackway thread in post number 326: We now know exactly who's responsible for submitting the two initial reports in the beginning. Bolding mine. Ahhhh...so the person who sent in the REPORTS of the tracks is the one doing the hoaxing according to you. That is not even remotely logical. I guess if I report a burning building and the investigation finds that the fire was an arson that makes me the arsonist? We are supposed to be a respectful community sharing information, no? The utter lack of respect for ALL the other forum members that have asked 'the question' is abhorrent. We have information shared via several outlets now that point to a member, that STILL has not outright denied involvement. If anything, his posts have only further fueled said speculation. This member has the end all be all opportunity to put this to bed. Yet he doesn't. As a 'long standing forum member' as you put it, I would think he would understand the implications of his behavior. Mike - you don't think that's a little fishy? Silence in the US and Canada is NOT to be taken as evidence of guilt or anything else. You do NOT have to say you are not guilty or that you did not do something and that is NOT to be held against you in any way. In both the US and in Canada people have a right to be silent and it is up to the accusers to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. I guess if you are unwilling to follow even the basic tenements of science it is not surprising that you also refuse to follow the basic premises of the laws of your land. Bob Gimlin refuses to answer direct questions about hoaxing the PGF. Do you apply the same lynch-mob rules with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) How am I 'unwilling to follow even the basic elements of science'? Which questions does Bob refuse to answer? Is he a member here or on the JRef? I'll go ask. Edited October 25, 2012 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted October 25, 2012 Share 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 The rules are being ignored Mike and it is a sad day for those who do have scruples and shows what a joke this forum has become regarding fairness and decorum. I think the horrible lynch-mob mentality is because many people's great hopes for vindication of their beliefs (i.e. Melba Ketchum's DNA study and Mr. Erickson's film) have fizzled out and died leaving these people angry and looking for a place to direct their anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts