The Motivation To Hoax

[Guest]

^Hardly, ohio. They brought plenty, and the usual suspects tried (again) to twist it and use it against them. To change analogies, in wartime, one does not just hand a soldier on the other side a weapon.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Mulder

[ohiobill]

Mulder - 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?

• 
  

[Guest]

Ohio,

Would you make the same demands of your local police department?

Ever heard of a sealed grand jury ?

[Guest]

The process worked. The hoax was exposed by the researchers.

The Skeptical booby trap only trapped Skeptical boobys.

I call that a good job any day of the week.

Mulder - 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?

The process worked. The hoax was exposed by the researchers.

The Skeptical booby trap only trapped Skeptical boobys.

I call that a good job any day of the week.

[ohiobill]

Well, that's almost an answer for one of the questions.

Yes, I do expect competency from my local police department - don't you? Would you be happy if your police department flubbed a high profile case even though numerous letters to the editor kept directing the police to obvious mistakes in their case that they proclaimed solved BEFORE investigating?

Yes, I've heard of a sealed grand jury. Most grand juries aren't out to defend bigfoot researchers so your connection isn't clear to me.

[Guest]

My point is that you can't judge the results of an investigation just because it isn't done in public.

[Guest]

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.

That's cool, but my original comment (that you responded to) was:

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?

You quoted Derek from the 10th ------ today is the 26th.. I'm willing to bet everyone involved knows more today - than they did on the 10th. My point is - there are some folks who are pretty certain the identity of the hoaxer(s) is unknown. I would be less than certain of that myself.

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?

Well, first of all, I am not going to sit here and pretend I can read the mind of Derek Randall's. I will venture a guess and say - "They don't actually know who's responsible" could mean a couple things. It could mean there are multiple people involved and they don't know all the names, or, it could mean while they have an email from the hoaxer they were still trying to trace back the information to find out who the person sending the email is. But, I am not Derek, nor am I involved with this investigation. But, those are the two options that make the most sense to me.

You know, just because someone sends an email and types a name, that doesn't mean the name is legit..

But, like I said - at least 16 days have passed - I wouldn't be so certain the investigators involved do not know way more than they did back on the 10th. But to my original point - how some can be so certain the investigators involved don't know who's responsible is curious to me.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Melissa

[Guest]

I have asked Mr Gimlin direct questions regarding the PGF on two occasions. He looked me directly in the eye and answered every one of them. Just because he does not get involved in the lunacy that Bigfootery can sometimes be and out of respect for his wife's wishes, should not be mistaken for his hiding anything. He does not owe anyone anything anymore, he has been there and done that for 45 years.

[Guest]

Yes, I do expect competency from my local police department - don't you? Would you be happy if your police department flubbed a high profile case even though numerous letters to the editor kept directing the police to obvious mistakes in their case that they proclaimed solved BEFORE investigating?

We all want our police and judicial system to be 100% correct - all of the time. But - neither are. When mistakes are found to have been made, there are avenues to correct the mistakes. Heck, even the media will give the police and judicial system the benefit of the doubt - until everything is said and done (in most circumstances).

But in the the field of bigfoot research - the investigators are not even given the opportunity to correct mistakes before they are accused of being "duped", "hoaxed", "fooled" and a whole host of other things - all said in an attempt to destroy credibility.

In the situation of the Elbe Trackway - the actual hoaxer(s) have not even publicly admitted to the hoax. The investigators - outed the hoax and still they are being accused of all kinds of things. LOL.

Lets not forget the investigators involved could have said - nothing - and just waited for the hoaxer to start bragging. But, had they done that, then there would have been a lot of "why did you withhold this information from us and let us all believe these tracks were legit - when you already knew they were a hoax???"

Darned if they did. Darned if they didn't.

[Cotter]

For those that keep asking for evidence, I will bring up the BFT article again.

I'm sure that everyone that's posted here in the past few pages has read it.

I want to give folks an opportunity to speculate on how 2 things occurred.

1) How did Dan P get the hoaxer's real name?

2) How did Dan P get the hoaxer's picture?

I'll withhold my comments until later.

[Guest]

Well, that's almost an answer for one of the questions.

It's a complete answer, you just don't like it.

As for bringing forth BF evidence, I've never said researchers shouldn't bring it forth, just that the proper time to do so is at the end of the investigation , so that Skeptics can't jump up and down screeching "Gotcha!" at every turn in the investigation.

Recent events have taught us that if researchers are 100% transparent up front, the Skeptics rip them to shreds for every little thing the Skeptics can slap a label of "mistake" on, and try to make it look like they're incompetent.

If researchers withold information until all the study is done, then Skeptics rip them to shreds for not being transparent, and imply that they're lying about even having found anything.

Of the two, the second is the easiest to handle, since at the end you have an investigation report with facts that will speak for themselves. The first is (as we have seen) and endless furball between Skeptics trying to twist proponent researcher statements for their purposes, and proponents trying to keep the record from being muddied by Skeptic misinformation.

Yes, I do expect competency from my local police department - don't you? Would you be happy if your police department flubbed a high profile case even though numerous letters to the editor kept directing the police to obvious mistakes in their case that they proclaimed solved BEFORE investigating?

No one "flubbed" ANYTHING. They exposed the hoax themselves!

How many times must this be repeated? The hoax failed!

Edited October 26, 2012 by Mulder

[ohiobill]

So, reading between the lines I believe you are agreeing that the investigation was mishandled and could have produced the same outcome with less criticism for the researchers. (For future reference a simple yes or no followed by your reasoning is the preferred and much more reliable indication of your actual beliefs.) I would be fine with the investigation holding off on their conclusions until the investigation is completed - I've been pointing out the utter lack of objectivity in saying "Yes, they're real" prior to investigation throughout this thread. I don't think withholding photos of trackways or the like helps at all if the researchers are unable to determine the validity of the evidence w/o having it pointed out to them as happened in this forum and in a ten minute walk through by a more skeptical researcher but I can see where it would be much less embarrassing. I still feel that this forum could actually help on an investigation where the researchers are unable to correctly identify obvious signs of hoaxing but there would still need to be a shift in the mindset of researchers and those who are unwilling to admit that researchers can make mistakes. Do you think forum members are capable of being an asset to research?

[Guest Transformer]

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

And would the police be able to publicly claim you were guilty before they fully investigated and all the facts were in? The answer is NO without serious repercussions befalling them.

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.

You have only a layman's knowlwedge and that just isn't enough for a serious discussion. However, I will quote a passage from a Supreme Court ruling from your own country that might help you to understand just how important this concept of English Common Law is: ... "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001).

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

IP addresses are not cut and dried and there has been enough evidence of that brought forward in this thread. I have not seen the "other evidence that is out there" so please specifically state in point form what this evidence is, when it was obtained and who it was obtained by. That way everybody will be able to see just how good this evidence really is. Since nobody has seen fit to do so yet it can only be called innuendo at this point in time.

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

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.

Your argument is still illogical and irrelevant as to ascertaing the truth about this particular case. Also, you are totally ignoring the time-line RAYG has provided more than once. Is that on purpose or just an error on your part?

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...

Sorry, I just don't understand this part and what it has to do with the discussion.

[Guest]

So, reading between the lines I believe you are agreeing that the investigation was mishandled and could have produced the same outcome with less criticism for the researchers.

No, I'm not. The investigation was handled just fine, as in the fact-gathering.

The reporting turned out to be not so good from the standpoint of allowing Skeptics too many opportunities to play word games and fling poo.

I would be fine with the investigation holding off on their conclusions until the investigation is completed - I've been pointing out the utter lack of objectivity in saying "Yes, they're real" prior to investigation throughout this thread.

This is People's Exhibit #1 of what I said above. Shoddy attempt to imply lack of objectivity based on a preliminary observation.

THIS is why they should not speak until they're done. Because anything they say can and will be used against them.

I don't think withholding photos of trackways or the like helps at all if the researchers are unable to determine the validity of the evidence w/o having it pointed out to them as happened in this forum and in a ten minute walk through by a more skeptical researcher but I can see where it would be much less embarrassing.

Where did this happen? Certainly not at Elbe. They had doubts from Day 1, but also saw enough that looked good to continue while keeping those doubts in mind.

Once again we see a Skeptic trying to shape the narrative to put researchers in the worst possible light by ignoring what they themselves said about the investigation.

Do you think forum members are capable of being an asset to research?

There are some members who already ARE great assets...then there are dirty hoaxers trying to tear everyone else down.

And would the police be able to publicly claim you were guilty before they fully investigated and all the facts were in?

Irrelevant, since the investigation already has many facts to hand, and is ongoing to bring in more.

You have only a layman's knowlwedge and that just isn't enough for a serious discussion. However, I will quote a passage from a Supreme Court ruling from your own country that might help you to understand just how important this concept of English Common Law is: ... "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001).

So what? There's nothing "ambiguous" about the situation. Either he sent the email or he didn't. Same with the other information that has been developed. Either he can explain it or he can't.

That he won't even TRY speaks volumes to the answers to those questions, as well as his credibility.

By the way, when you Plead the Fifth, that is ALL you are allowed to say on the subject. If you say so much as a single word other than to invoke the Fifth, you have waived that right and must testify fully.

Tontar as been VERY vocal about the Elbe Hoax and has had no problem tearing down the researchers, making snide remarks, etc. So in a court he would not be able to "plead the Fifth", as he has already offered testimony on the subject (just not exactly where and how much he personally was involved).

IP addresses are not cut and dried and there has been enough evidence of that brought forward in this thread.

No, some half-baked (and wrong) assertions were made to try to impeach the IP evidence. Those assertions ultimately failed to show that the IP addy was NOT his.

I have not seen the "other evidence that is out there" so please specifically state in point form what this evidence is, when it was obtained and who it was obtained by. That way everybody will be able to see just how good this evidence really is. Since nobody has seen fit to do so yet it can only be called innuendo at this point in time.

You can pull in the hook, I'm not biting. You can't bait me into revealing details I have promised to keep to myself. When the investigators want that known, I am confident it will be known

Your argument is still illogical and irrelevant as to ascertaing the truth about this particular case. Also, you are totally ignoring the time-line RAYG has provided more than once. Is that on purpose or just an error on your part?

RayG's "timeline" assumes that the investigators only entertained doubts at the point where they expressed those doubts, so it's pretty much crap for that fact alone. It's not valid, and I have no need to refute it. That's like asking me to refute the equation 1+1=2. Utterly not needed.

Sorry, I just don't understand this part and what it has to do with the discussion.

Yes you do. Where was your "outrage" when all the Skeptics were raking the investigating team over the coals? Calling them "dupes". Accusing them of lying when they said they entertained doubts from Day 1.

Nowhere, that's where.

But now that it's the Skeptics that are over the fire, the apologists for their side are all "outraged" at the attitude displayed.

[PBeaton]

For those that keep asking for evidence, I will bring up the BFT article again.

I'm sure that everyone that's posted here in the past few pages has read it.

I want to give folks an opportunity to speculate on how 2 things occurred.

1) How did Dan P get the hoaxer's real name?

2) How did Dan P get the hoaxer's picture?

I'll withhold my comments until later.

Cotter,

A couple...or a few..?...years back when Tontar created his avatar image, Daniel used it for the cover of his Bigfoot Times as well as interviewin' him for that issue, so he knew who Tontar was/is. If Daniel is goin' by what is bein' suggested here, an perhaps on other sites(?), he would know Tontar's identity already. In the Oct. issue shown here, didn't Daniel say he went back to check his files ?

To everyone,

Again, as far as I'm concerned, seems ta be alot of speculation goin' on an we're not seein' any definative evidence. Besides speculation or it bein' suggested, has anyone here seen any actual evidence that incriminates anyone ?

Yes, I agree it sucks big time we have hoaxers, but we already knew that. Yes it sucks people got screwed over loosin' both their time an money researchin' this. Yes, I think peoples pride took a blow, an no one likes that...it's human nature...but it is also human nature to make mistakes, to be wrong now an again. It happens. An it will likely happen again.

When I first started readin' up on the trackway an looked at images of the tracks, I found them interestin'.

Did the hoaxer get away with a hoax, no.

I think it a shame if as some have said, they will no longer share information. I think the sharin' of information allows us to all learn, even if it's from a mistake.

I also think it a shame to come to conclusions to fast, that's how mistakes can be made.

Have a good week-end folks !

Pat...