The Motivation To Hoax

[Guest]

^Very good point. Plussed.

[Guest RayG]

It isn't that they did it, Ray, it's the way they did it: covertly, and with the intent of playing the "Gotcha" card on researchers.

So unless a proponent is along for the ride from the beginning, it renders the outcome useless?

Isn't that what some people had been asking for -- that if it's so easy to create a fake track/trackway, skeptics should be able to produce one?

Apparently one did, and maybe there should have been a collective realization that maybe it's not as difficult as we thought to produce fake tracks, instead of some folks trying to vilify the perpetrator, regardless of the way he did it.

RayG

[Guest BFSleuth]

While I certainly challenged skeptics to try to replicate a trackway and even off handedly suggested to try it as a hoax to see if it could be discovered as such (which it was), I would have thought that if this was conducted as an experiment the correct thing to do would have been to document it as such and immediately come forward with the documentation as soon as the gig was up. That would be a correct and legitimate way to proceed.

I understand if after the hoax was known that perhaps the hoaxer was concerned about the issues of being known as a hoaxer, but the overall manner in which the "post hoax discovery" thing has been handled has been less than forthcoming. IMHO there is still time for a legitimate coming forward and "tell all" to the community.

The bottom line regarding the Elbe trackway hoax is that it wasn't good enough to be classified as a legitimate trackway. While it seems it was better than the average hoax, it didn't pass muster with the researchers. Certain characteristics of legitimate trackways were missing, and tell tale signs of stomper tracks were all over the trackway. Provenance of the reporting party was certainly the biggest tripping point.

Perhaps it would be better to take a page from Tube's investigations of trackways on the JREF and simply try and demonstrate the characteristics of hoaxed tracks in a manner that is educational. There's still the chance to change tack and conduct the education, to come clean.

[Guest]

Isn't that what some people had been asking for -- that if it's so easy to create a fake track/trackway, skeptics should be able to produce one?

Apparently one did, and maybe there should have been a collective realization that maybe it's not as difficult as we thought to produce fake tracks, instead of some folks trying to vilify the perpetrator, regardless of the way he did it.

RayG

The situations are not the same, Ray, and you very well know it. You-know-who (and the identity is now known from what I hear) is NOT some random JimmyJoeBubbaBob whittling stompers on their porch. The individual is well-versed in the BF field, knew what to include and how to do it to get the most convincing result.

To extrapolate from that to a nation-wide, multi-decade long consipiracy of similarly well-educated and motivated hoaxers is not a credible argument.

Oh, and by the way, Ray, it didn't work. They were on to it from the beginning, but did their due dilligence and documented everything. In other words: they did their job. Skeptics have been playing the "gullible researcher" card for quite some time, but Derek and DDA and the others proved that card was not the trump card that Skeptics thought it was.

They outsmarted you guys Ray. You-know-who's little booby trap only caught Skeptical boobys. You know it. We know it. .

Perhaps it would be better to take a page from Tube's investigations of trackways on the JREF and simply try and demonstrate the characteristics of hoaxed tracks in a manner that is educational. There's still the chance to change tack and conduct the education, to come clean.

You and I both know the liklihood of Ketchum's paper coming out next week is more likely than the liklihood of that happening, Sleuth.

[ohiobill]

The situations are not the same, Ray, and you very well know it. You-know-who (and the identity is now known from what I hear) is NOT some random JimmyJoeBubbaBob whittling stompers on their porch. The individual is well-versed in the BF field, knew what to include and how to do it to get the most convincing result.

To extrapolate from that to a nation-wide, multi-decade long consipiracy of similarly well-educated and motivated hoaxers is not a credible argument.

Oh, and by the way, Ray, it didn't work. They were on to it from the beginning, but did their due dilligence and documented everything. In other words: they did their job. Skeptics have been playing the "gullible researcher" card for quite some time, but Derek and DDA and the others proved that card was not the trump card that Skeptics thought it was.

They outsmarted you guys Ray. You-know-who's little booby trap only caught Skeptical boobys. You know it. We know it. .

You and I both know the liklihood of Ketchum's paper coming out next week is more likely than the liklihood of that happening, Sleuth.

It worked on the investigators for a while - perhaps you want to revisit the thread? It worked on proponents like you for even longer Mulder - perhaps you want to revisit the thread? I personally think it's possible to hoax anyone, including Dr. Meldrum. Dr's Meldrum & Fahrenbach have papers that detail what they are looking for - it's not the mystery you seem to believe. What do you think would happen if some biomechanical engineering students were to create some hoaxes? Some prosthetics manufacturers? Why not push for a more scientific methodology? It's obvious you respect the work of the scientists currently involved - why not push for the amatuers to step up unless you feel they are incapable or feel that their work is irrelevant either way? The bottom line is that any unwitnessed trackway HAS to be considered a possible hoax by any open minded person regardless of their belief in bigfoot.

[Guest]

I'm a bit confused here. When was it proven it was a so called sceptic that made these tracks. What I want to know is why are the researchers protecting the identity of the hoaxer.

[southernyahoo]

The bottom line is that any unwitnessed trackway HAS to be considered a possible hoax by any open minded person regardless of their belief in bigfoot.

Depends on the circumstances, and what you might consider to be a bigfoot trackway.

What would you recommend as a more scientific methodology Ohiobill? Maybe you could detail that out for us.

[Guest]

It worked on the investigators for a while - perhaps you want to revisit the thread? It worked on proponents like you for even longer Mulder - perhaps you want to revisit the thread?

No it didn't. They were skeptical from the start, but willing to be open minded. Initially, the information that was being developed seemed to assuage their doubts BUT that situation changed, as did their conclusions.

In other words: the process worked.

As for what I believed, I only knew what information was available to the general public, since I was not on the investigating team. I also modified my position based on the best evidence.

In other words, I engaged in proper critical thinking. So no sale on that front either.

I personally think it's possible to hoax anyone, including Dr. Meldrum. Dr's Meldrum & Fahrenbach have papers that detail what they are looking for - it's not the mystery you seem to believe. What do you think would happen if some biomechanical engineering students were to create some hoaxes? Some prosthetics manufacturers?

Again, apples and oranges. Such highly skilled individuals are not the same as JimmyJoeBubbaBob whitling stompers on their porch.

You know it. We know it.

This is a Man in a Suit

It was produced by well educated and experienced Hollywood professionals at great expense in money and time.

Does that mean all pictures of gorillas that look this good are Men In Suits?

Of course not.

This is the level of detail in information that researchers like Dr Meldrum and Dr Fahrenbach are seeing in SOME BF track casts. This is the level of detal that you are positing a small army of JimmyJoeBubbaBobs spontaneously produces that has "fooled" researchers.

No, the only way to get that level of result across 100s and 100s of miles an many years, even decades in time would be an impossibly well-organized, highly intelligent, educated, and skilled undertaking involving a large group of individuals.

There is absolutely NO evidence that such a group exists.

Why not push for a more scientific methodology?

You mean like the methodology that exposed You-Know-Who's hoax? Seems to have worked just fine, but you Skeptics won't give credit where credit is due.

Again, the researchers were suspicious from the start, but they did the due diligence anyways. Just as they should. And in the end they did the right thing and honestly presented the conclusion the evidence led to.

It's obvious you respect the work of the scientists currently involved - why not push for the amatuers to step up unless you feel they are incapable or feel that their work is irrelevant either way?

See above.

The bottom line is that any unwitnessed trackway HAS to be considered a possible hoax by any open minded person regardless of their belief in bigfoot.

Possible =/= is. And the improbable circumstances that would allow the scientific patterns discovered by Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al to be the result of a random collection of hoaxes by local Slack-Jawed Cletuses is just not a viable explanation for the data.

I'm a bit confused here. When was it proven it was a so called sceptic that made these tracks. What I want to know is why are the researchers protecting the identity of the hoaxer.

They aren't. My understanding is that this is being discussed in the Premium section, and as such cannot be repeated in the public forum.

However, if you go back and review the Elbe threads, esp the 2nd one, there are enough "bread crumbs" to give you a good idea who it is.

[ohiobill]

SY - under what circumstances would you state that an UNWITNESSED trackway has no possibility it could be a hoax? Changing that would be step #1 in any methodology I put forth.

[Guest]

SY - under what circumstances would you state that an UNWITNESSED trackway has no possibility it could be a hoax? Changing that would be step #1 in any methodology I put forth.

Strawman. No one is denying that there is a non-zero possibility that any given trackway may be hoaxed. However, that does not mean that all trackways must be dismissed out of hand as valid evidence, since a significant number of them would require extremely specialized knowledge and skills to fake successfully.

And again I note that You-Know-Who's little bobby trap only proved that the researchers know their stuff, and are not as easy to fool as Skeptics like to claim they are.

[southernyahoo]

Not all barefooted track ways are hoaxed Ohiobill, they might just be misidentified human tracks, or they could be from another species of genus homo. So the circumstances play a part in someones perception of what type of person or being made them. For instance, if you found what you percieved to be perfect bigfoot tracks on a public beach littered with what you think is modern human tracks you would dismiss those almost without a second glance. You find the same looking tracks deep in the wilderness, off trail in a place and time where no hoaxer could count on them being found you will look at those differently. Thats the way it is, and there is no proving anything from them unless real bigfoot tracks have some sort of distinct and consistent characteristics that are unhoaxable. As soon as someone makes this known, then the arguments begin that even that is hoaxable and will set out to prove it. I don't see any scientific methodology that can prevent this, so I'm all ears as to what you might recommend.

[Guest]

No it didn't. They were skeptical from the start, but willing to be open minded. Initially, the information that was being developed seemed to assuage their doubts BUT that situation changed, as did their conclusions.

In other words: the process worked.

As for what I believed, I only knew what information was available to the general public, since I was not on the investigating team. I also modified my position based on the best evidence.

In other words, I engaged in proper critical thinking. So no sale on that front either.

Again, apples and oranges. Such highly skilled individuals are not the same as JimmyJoeBubbaBob whitling stompers on their porch.

You know it. We know it.

This is a Man in a Suit

It was produced by well educated and experienced Hollywood professionals at great expense in money and time.

Does that mean all pictures of gorillas that look this good are Men In Suits?

Of course not.

This is the level of detail in information that researchers like Dr Meldrum and Dr Fahrenbach are seeing in SOME BF track casts. This is the level of detal that you are positing a small army of JimmyJoeBubbaBobs spontaneously produces that has "fooled" researchers.

No, the only way to get that level of result across 100s and 100s of miles an many years, even decades in time would be an impossibly well-organized, highly intelligent, educated, and skilled undertaking involving a large group of individuals.

There is absolutely NO evidence that such a group exists.

You mean like the methodology that exposed You-Know-Who's hoax? Seems to have worked just fine, but you Skeptics won't give credit where credit is due.

Again, the researchers were suspicious from the start, but they did the due diligence anyways. Just as they should. And in the end they did the right thing and honestly presented the conclusion the evidence led to.

See above.

Possible =/= is. And the improbable circumstances that would allow the scientific patterns discovered by Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al to be the result of a random collection of hoaxes by local Slack-Jawed Cletuses is just not a viable explanation for the data.

They aren't. My understanding is that this is being discussed in the Premium section, and as such cannot be repeated in the public forum.

However, if you go back and review the Elbe threads, esp the 2nd one, there are enough "bread crumbs" to give you a good idea who it is.

the hoaxer has not been outed in premium section. The researchers are still protecting the hoaxer. Bread crumbs don't amount to proven. The reseachers were not sceptic from the start, Look at DDD's tag on the thread he started. Them being sceptic came days later when they started the back tracking. Edited October 7, 2012 by squatting squatch

[ohiobill]

No it didn't. They were skeptical from the start, but willing to be open minded. Initially, the information that was being developed seemed to assuage their doubts BUT that situation changed, as did their conclusions.

In other words: the process worked.

As for what I believed, I only knew what information was available to the general public, since I was not on the investigating team. I also modified my position based on the best evidence.

In other words, I engaged in proper critical thinking. So no sale on that front either.

Again, apples and oranges. Such highly skilled individuals are not the same as JimmyJoeBubbaBob whitling stompers on their porch.

You know it. We know it.

This is a Man in a Suit

It was produced by well educated and experienced Hollywood professionals at great expense in money and time.

Does that mean all pictures of gorillas that look this good are Men In Suits?

Of course not.

This is the level of detail in information that researchers like Dr Meldrum and Dr Fahrenbach are seeing in SOME BF track casts. This is the level of detal that you are positing a small army of JimmyJoeBubbaBobs spontaneously produces that has "fooled" researchers.

No, the only way to get that level of result across 100s and 100s of miles an many years, even decades in time would be an impossibly well-organized, highly intelligent, educated, and skilled undertaking involving a large group of individuals.

There is absolutely NO evidence that such a group exists.

You mean like the methodology that exposed You-Know-Who's hoax? Seems to have worked just fine, but you Skeptics won't give credit where credit is due.

Again, the researchers were suspicious from the start, but they did the due diligence anyways. Just as they should. And in the end they did the right thing and honestly presented the conclusion the evidence led to.

Possible =/= is. And the improbable circumstances that would allow the scientific patterns discovered by Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al to be the result of a random collection of hoaxes by local Slack-Jawed Cletuses is just not a viable explanation for the data.

Again, revisit the thread and tell us when they became suspicious. It could have worked fine had they kept their early hopes from becoming erroneous conclusions. In any type of serious science this is looked upon as NOT doing due diligence. Perhaps our perspectives are just different?

As to the rest of your post I would ask if you are saying it is impossible for a "non JimmyJoeBubbaBob whitling stompers on their porch" to engage in hoaxing so therefore there is no need to consider it?

In regards to the gorilla picture and bigfoot I don't know any logical person who would agree that a faked picture precludes known animals from existing.

Wouldn't it be safer to say that when determining whether a gorilla/bigfoot picture is real there have been some really good known hoaxes and skepticism should be kept high rather than jumping on the bandwagon immediately?

Where did I suggest "a small army of JimmyJoeBubbaBobs spontaneously produces that has "fooled" researchers"? Have you mistaken me for someone else? I personally feel one person would be sufficient to produce a hoax that would fool anyone if they were so inclined. The information is available and human ingenuity has overcome much more difficult challenges.

Strawman. No one is denying that there is a non-zero possibility that any given trackway may be hoaxed. However, that does not mean that all trackways must be dismissed out of hand as valid evidence, since a significant number of them would require extremely specialized knowledge and skills to fake successfully.

And again I note that You-Know-Who's little bobby trap only proved that the researchers know their stuff, and are not as easy to fool as Skeptics like to claim they are.

SY appears to be denying such a possibility in certain instances in his opinion so your strawman argument makes no sense here? The only person who doesn't seem to understand that considering likely explanations doesn't preclude other possibilities appears to be you from this non-sensical argument above and your previous inability to understand Occam's razor. An example would be that previous hoaxes may have inadvertantly placed some of the extremely specialized information into the record and may not even be reliable. It's A possibility, NOT the ONLY possibility and would have to be ruled out prior to having 100% confidence in any results obtained.

[Guest BFSleuth]

the hoaxer has not been outed in premium section. The researchers are still protecting the hoaxer. Bread crumbs don't amount to proven. The reseachers were not sceptic from the start, Look at DDD's tag on the thread he started. Them being sceptic came days later when they started the back tracking.

Yes, the hoaxer has been identified in the premium section as far as BFF identity.

Regarding your observation (and ohiobill's) that there was early enthusiasm from some researchers and forum members that is true. However, not all researchers had a positive feeling about the tracks from the beginning, and even prior to coming to observe the tracks because of the suspicious nature of the e-mail that was received. In spite of that they felt they had to document what was there for the possibility it may be a valid trackway or to more carefully document a hoax that was admittedly a very good attempt. I don't think it is a fair or accurate statement to say that all or even most of the researchers involved in the investigation had a positive feeling for the trackway from their initial observations.

If you also read back carefully through the initial stages of the trackway thread, you will also see that there were a number of investigators and members that were asking for more complete evidence before wanting to form an opinion. A number of us have "been around the block" with enough potentially exciting pieces of evidence that have fallen short of validity that we are understandably cautious.

In the case of this trackway, to get back to the topic of the OP, I think the motivation was pretty clear. The intent was to discredit Cliff and the BFRO, and hopefully get Meldrum and Chilcutt to verify the tracks, then come out with a documentary of the making of the hoax complete with trail cam pictures of the investigation. The idea was to prove to the world that all bigfoot evidence is a fake and all these so called "experts" are fools.

Unfortunately for our BFF friend, he didn't take into account that they could figure it out or find out who he was. Nor did he seem to have a contingency plan in place for when it would be discovered as a hoax to come forward and explain that he was doing this all as an experiment or some such thing.

We are still awaiting his response.

[Guest]

Yes, the hoaxer has been identified in the premium section as far as BFF identity.

Regarding your observation (and ohiobill's) that there was early enthusiasm from some researchers and forum members that is true. However, not all researchers had a positive feeling about the tracks from the beginning, and even prior to coming to observe the tracks because of the suspicious nature of the e-mail that was received. In spite of that they felt they had to document what was there for the possibility it may be a valid trackway or to more carefully document a hoax that was admittedly a very good attempt. I don't think it is a fair or accurate statement to say that all or even most of the researchers involved in the investigation had a positive feeling for the trackway from their initial observations.

If you also read back carefully through the initial stages of the trackway thread, you will also see that there were a number of investigators and members that were asking for more complete evidence before wanting to form an opinion. A number of us have "been around the block" with enough potentially exciting pieces of evidence that have fallen short of validity that we are understandably cautious.

In the case of this trackway, to get back to the topic of the OP, I think the motivation was pretty clear. The intent was to discredit Cliff and the BFRO, and hopefully get Meldrum and Chilcutt to verify the tracks, then come out with a documentary of the making of the hoax complete with trail cam pictures of the investigation. The idea was to prove to the world that all bigfoot evidence is a fake and all these so called "experts" are fools.

Unfortunately for our BFF friend, he didn't take into account that they could figure it out or find out who he was. Nor did he seem to have a contingency plan in place for when it would be discovered as a hoax to come forward and explain that he was doing this all as an experiment or some such thing.

We are still awaiting his response.

no the researchers have not identified the hoaxer yet. It's just a bunch of speculation in the premium section.