The Motivation To Hoax

[Guest gershake]

a member, that STILL has not outright denied involvement. If anything, his posts have only further fueled said speculation.

And I think that's exactly his point. I still maintain that he's not the hoaxer. I guess we'll see how this plays out in the end.

Edited October 25, 2012 by gershake

[Guest]

Actually Transformer - I am simply relating what Derek has said in this regard on this forum.

As for the October 10th interview Squatting Squatch - you were speaking specifically about Derek and his interview with Sharon. I have not listened to the program - and you have not told me which show you heard this in. Derek is only listed as being on 1 show.. That was back on October 10th. No one knows if Derek or someone else involved in the investigation knows more now - today is October 25th. Please don't twist my words.

Ironic is the word I would use for the protection of this hoaxer. One person is jumped like a gazelle in Africa for not admitting or denying something - another should simply be left alone.. LMAO. Ironic is a good word.

[Guest Transformer]

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.

Mr. Gimlin is not a member of this forum and I'm not a member of the JREF so I don't know about that.

Mr. Gimlin will not participate in a direct question and answer session regarding the PGF and that is a fact.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest thermalman]

the plot thickens. Edited October 25, 2012 by thermalman

[bipedalist]

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.

Total BS, if things came down like any high average IQ person can figure, certain members should be dinged and tossed. That is for all to see and few to confront with their faithful, yet selective "reality testing". The forum is nothing less and certainly a whole lot more for permitting all to see the hypocrisy inherent in those defending it.

[Martin]

............ Lots in this community can change in less than 24 hours.

Some one could say nothing changes..... ever.......

[PBeaton]

Myself, I don't know the entire story nor what evidence there is. I can certainly understand the frustration, but at the same time, until whatever evidence is presented...what can be said with any certainty...are we talkin' opinions...or facts ? I've not seen the evidence, heard folks say they've got some/it... but until I see the evidence an weigh it...goin' ta have ta do like gershake on this one, an wait an see how things play out.

I butt heads with Tontar all the time, I can judge his arguments by his posts but to judge him without evidence of bein' involved...I cannot...nor will I.

Pat...

[Cotter]

I dunno, I look forward to seeing what the Bigfoot Times November Issue says about the issue.

I wonder if there will be a retraction.

That is who provided the evidence. In journalism, it is usually a good idea to have a reliable source prior to publishing. Sources are very difficult to make a journalist divulge.

However, if there is a problem with it. My guess is we'll see a small retraction in the next issue.

@ Transformer - by Bob G not participating in a Q&A - what does that imply?

That he is innocent but just doesn't 'feel' like humoring the skeptics? Is that what you get out of that?

If not, what does that say about our current situation with our member?

Or, guilty or not, we should not be asking those types of questions to members?

Or just skeptical members, b/c I've seen a TON of accusations put forth toward Bill Munn's and don't recall certain folks ever taking issue with it.

Please clarify.

[Guest]

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?

And if they also found freshly emptied gas cans in your car and a lighter you'd still think they had no case?

There is more to this than just an IP addy, but that's all that's out in the open AFAIK right now.

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.

That's a nice little bit of legal verbiage, but in the real world, innocent people don't plead the Fifth.

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.

And, again, there IS evidence to support his guilt.

If you want to continue to use the analogy of a trial, the defense has yet to offer ANY alternative explanation for the evidence of guilt.

And, once again, if he played ANY part in the hoax, from laying the track to research to the "tip off", then he is absolutely a hoaxer. He participated in the hoax.

What part of that is impossible for the apologists to understand?

Bob Gimlin refuses to answer direct questions about hoaxing the PGF. Do you apply the same lynch-mob rules with him?

No, but Skeptics do all the time with less reason.

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.

And where was all this "outrage" when Skeptics were tearing DDA and Derekfoot a new one, eh? Or all the terrible things that have been said about Dr Meldrum? Or "believers" in general?

Guess it's only "outrageous" when it's Skeptics getting their feet held to the fire...

[Guest]

Actually Transformer - I am simply relating what Derek has said in this regard on this forum.

As for the October 10th interview Squatting Squatch - you were speaking specifically about Derek and his interview with Sharon. I have not listened to the program - and you have not told me which show you heard this in. Derek is only listed as being on 1 show.. That was back on October 10th. No one knows if Derek or someone else involved in the investigation knows more now - today is October 25th. Please don't twist my words.

Ironic is the word I would use for the protection of this hoaxer. One person is jumped like a gazelle in Africa for not admitting or denying something - another should simply be left alone.. LMAO. Ironic is a good word.

Your right. The last statement made public was made by Derek on Oct. 10th on Sharon's show stating they do not actually know who the hoaxer is. So unless someone has some information they want to show, that statement still stands.

Looking back on the Elbe trackway thread Derek doesn't make sense.

On Oct. 2nd he posted:

And BTW John, we "experts" know who's

responsible because we did our homework.

DR

And this

Posted 03 October 2012 - 05:14 PM

It's there kit but I'm not going to drop the

bomb. This investigation belongs to Scott

Taylor. He was nice enough to involve me. If

he sees fit to expose the responsible party he

will. I was working with the person involved but

as of last night the bad taste in my mouth got

worse. Read into that what you will.

DR

But on Sharons show on Oct. 10th he states they don't actually know who's responsible and he's still working with the person who sent the email. So which is it?

Edited October 25, 2012 by squatting squatch

[roguefooter]

This is what Tontar said at JREF

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.

Tontar's post was sarcasm- of course it was fiction. It also has nothing to do with whether he was really involved or not.

Tontar has also been talking about making a Patty replica suit for at least the past year here on the BFF- that part isn't fiction.

A simple denial of any involvement would help, but he has refused to do that for weeks now. Why? This hoax cost people lots of time off of work and money spent- why would you not dissociate yourself from all of that?

Silence may not mean one is guilty, but it sure can eat away at your reputation of being a respectable person.

Edited October 25, 2012 by roguefooter

[Guest Transformer]

And if they also found freshly emptied gas cans in your car and a lighter you'd still think they had no case?

There is more to this than just an IP addy, but that's all that's out in the open AFAIK right now.

And if they found YOUR name and phone number and wallet at the scene would that that make a difference? Speculate and add non-facts all you want but the evidence is not conclusive yet.

That's a nice little bit of legal verbiage, but in the real world, innocent people don't plead the Fifth.

Whaaaattt???

That is straight out horse puckey and I demand you show proof of this. Thank goodness you are not part of the legal system.

And, again, there IS evidence to support his guilt.

Where? Innuendos are nothing.

If you want to continue to use the analogy of a trial, the defense has yet to offer ANY alternative explanation for the evidence of guilt.

The defence has absolutely no requirement to explain or offer any proof of innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the trial in this case would be finished as soon as the prosecution presented its case as the defence would quickly and confidently make a motion to dismiss the case due to LACK OF EVIDENCE.

And, once again, if he played ANY part in the hoax, from laying the track to research to the "tip off", then he is absolutely a hoaxer. He participated in the hoax.

What part of that is impossible for the apologists to understand?

If ifs and buts were pots and pans, there would be no need for tinkers. I see your convoluted attempts at logic and knowledge of real world practices is as bad in law and matters of justice as your comprehension of science is.

No, but Skeptics do all the time with less reason.

All of the skeptics all of the time or some of the skeptics some of the time or some of the skeptics all of the time or or what?

And where was all this "outrage" when Skeptics were tearing DDA and Derekfoot a new one, eh? Or all the terrible things that have been said about Dr Meldrum? Or "believers" in general?

Not logical and not relevant plus see above.

Guess it's only "outrageous" when it's Skeptics getting their feet held to the fire...

You don't have a spark much less a fire.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Transformer

[roguefooter]

Speculate and add non-facts all you want but the evidence is not conclusive yet.

I don't think conclusive proof of involvement really matters on an internet forum or community. His reputation is all he has here and he's pretty much flushed it down the toilet himself. The lack of conclusive proof isn't going to change the fact that people have lost all trust and respect for the guy. Just like there is no conclusive proof for probably 90% of hoaxes out there doesn't mean that people won't go with gut instinct and probabilities.

Edited October 26, 2012 by roguefooter

[Guest]

And if they found YOUR name and phone number and wallet at the scene would that that make a difference?

I guarantee I would be getting an inquiry from the cops and have to be cleared as a suspect.

Whaaaattt???

That is straight out horse puckey and I demand you show proof of this. Thank goodness you are not part of the legal system.

When you take the Fifth, you are refusing to incriminate yourself. By definition that means your statement WOULD incriminate you. If nothing you have to say is incriminating, then you have no reason not to speak.

What part of that is so difficult to understand.

Where? Innuendos are nothing.

IP addresses are not "innuendo", neither is the other evidence that is out there.

The defence has absolutely no requirement to explain or offer any proof of innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the trial in this case would be finished as soon as the prosecution presented its case as the defence would quickly and confidently make a motion to dismiss the case due to LACK OF EVIDENCE.

You have a very strange definition of "lack of evidence", given what is known about the IP addy and other issues.

Not logical and not relevant plus see above.

Entirely logical AND relevant. There was none of this outrage being expressed by the Skeptic side when THEY were continuously calling DDA and Derek "gullible", "taken in", implying they were lying when they said they had doubts about the trackway from Day 1, etc. Indeed, the Skeptics were egging the accusers on, to the point where DDA and several other people have declared they will no longer share information on this forum.

THERE's your "witchhunt", Transformer. But it's the researchers who are tied to the stake, so I guess you don't have a problem with that...

[ohiobill]

Mulder - Really, tied to the stake? If they are tied to a stake it's only after they built the platform, added extra wood, AND brought the rope. Do you really feel that the Elbe investigation went as well as it could have? Do you really believe that by NOT bringing evidence forward to this forum that it will become MORE believeable when it's released?