Guest BFSleuth Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Are you familiar with IP addresses and how they work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 yes. Please show me a link to where the researchers have announced the name of the hoaxer. The only thing in the premium section is a poster pretty much saying a little bird told them that the ip addresses matched. Nothing from the researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 the hoaxer has not been outed in premium section. The researchers are still protecting the hoaxer. Nope, they have posted the damning proof, according to what I've been told. Bread crumbs don't amount to proven. They amount to a confession, and pointing to that thread so that readers can figure it out for themselves is as close as I can come in the Public forum to the identity of the Skeptic hoaxer. 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. Both Derek and DDA have publically said that they were skeptical from the start. You have just accused them of lying. 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? Their stated final conclusion is that it was hoaxed. According to you, that is the proper conclusion (that the tracks are hoaxed). So where is their conclusion "erroneous"? Or are you desperately grasping at any reason you can find to bash the researchers? 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? By all means consider it (that's intellectually honest), but when you reach the inescapable conclusion that the idea of such a random collection of isolated good ol boys simply can not create such a highly detailed, consistent body of data you must accept that conclusion as well. 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? And you completely miss the point, or are you deliberately ignoring it? The point was to show that such hyper-realistic results are NOT the end product of some Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel puttering around with primitive gear and no education/skills in regards to the area of discussion. Results that good require time, money, and knowledge far beyond those the average individual either possess or are willing to invest in such an endeavor. Where did I suggest "a small army of JimmyJoeBubbaBobs spontaneously produces that has "fooled" researchers"? Have you mistaken me for someone else? You subscribe to the theory that Dr's Meldrum and Fahrenbach (among others) have been fooled by a random collection of hoaxes when they identify specific, esoteric (in the sense of highly technical detail that only someone with training in the science of anthropology and wildlife statistics would possess) indicators that demonstrate that the cast tracks represent living non-human creatures and are not the product of a bunch of hillbillies whittling crude wooden feet. 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. So one person has been running all over the country for many decades with a a set of super-stompers hoaxing every BF track that was incorporated into the work of Meldrum and Fahrenbach?That is even more laughable than the idea of an army of hoaxers. 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. I understand it just fine. I understand it well enough to know that the simplest explanation for a body of data that suggests a living, non-human bipedal primate lives in N America is that such a creature IS in fact real, as opposed to theorizing about a multi-decade, continent-spanning conspiracy of highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated hoaxers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 link to the post of the damning evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Both Derek and DDA have publically said that they were skeptical from the start. You have just accused them of lying. . When they said they were sceptical, did they mean they were sure it was fake or did they mean they approached it without a preconceived conclusion? The latter is the sceptical point of view while the former is dogmatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 yes. Please show me a link to where the researchers have announced the name of the hoaxer. The only thing in the premium section is a poster pretty much saying a little bird told them that the ip addresses matched. Nothing from the researchers. I think the little bird is in a position to know. The researchers themselves aren't privy to the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 When they said they were sceptical, did they mean they were sure it was fake or did they mean they approached it without a preconceived conclusion? The latter is the sceptical point of view while the former is dogmatic. They said (paraphrasing) that they saw "red flags", but that they also saw enough that looked promising to warrant a fuller investigation. They were certainly hoping it might be legit, but they had reasons to doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) BFs, that's heresay and nothing provided to back it up. The researchers have not divulged the hoaxers identity as of yet. DF said the hoaxer would be revealed over a week ago, still nothing. Still protecting the hoaxer. Edited October 7, 2012 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Heresay from a person in the position to know. I'm sure that final confirmation will be forthcoming. I can't say more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Nope, they have posted the damning proof, according to what I've been told. Nope, you've been told wrong. The researchers have not posted any damning proof. I challenge anybody to provide a link to where the researchers that investigated the Elbe trackway have posted this so called proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Look at Rick Dyer. His little prank turned into a big waste of time for a lot of people. Due to his silliness, he was removed from his position as a police officer, as he clearly showed a lack of professionalism and lost the trust of his supervisors. Had he been a walmart greeter or 3rd shirt custodian, no one would have cared. While broke no legal code, he violated moral values of society. I think that the main problem for him occured when $$ began changing hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Squatting Squatch, I think you are correct to say that the "damning proof" has not been posted by the researchers of the trackway itself. There is reticence to publish the proof to give hoaxers additional material to improve their methods. However, I think it is worthwhile for them to publish their findings and look forward to when they do. I believe the damning proof Mulder speaks of is the reference to the IP address match to the e-mail sent to the BFRO. While the evidence itself has not been published, I'm confident that it is correct. While the individual has been lurking the threads for the last several days, he hasn't seen fit to respond to this information. We await his reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Nope, you've been told wrong. The researchers have not posted any damning proof. I challenge anybody to provide a link to where the researchers that investigated the Elbe trackway have posted this so called proof. And you know those details cannot be posted directly in this thread due to forum rules, though BFS did link to the appropriate thread for those who have Premium membership. The information is out. You-know-who is a dirty hoaxer, and ought to be banned, along with anyone and everyone who either helped him or knew about it and said nothing as part of the plan. I believe the damning proof Mulder speaks of is the reference to the IP address match to the e-mail sent to the BFRO. While the evidence itself has not been published, I'm confident that it is correct. While the individual has been lurking the threads for the last several days, he hasn't seen fit to respond to this information. We await his reply. Yup...not holding my breath though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) If there is a hoaxer among us, than they should certainly be outed. Obviously the intend was to make a hoax, let the Bigfooters run with it, then humiliate them for their belief in the end. That is malicious, damaging behavior and if anyone of the researchers who know who this person is, they have a responsibility to openly report on this guy. A malicious person, intend on derailing and damaging the reputation of serious research even more, through deliberate means,should not be afforded the luxury of hiding because they are a member, or premium member here, that makes the forum an accomplice to the hoax. As a matter of fact,anyone who was privy to the hoax before hand, that is a member should also be banded. Edited October 7, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) I know what Mulders talking about and I agree with most of what you said, but the simple fact is there has not been any evidence published as to the identity of the hoaxer. Just one posting that somebody heard the ip addresses matched. Nothing from the bfro or any of the researchers. Mulder stating the hoaxer has been outed as fact is premature. Just speculation. If he thinks I'm wrong, he's more than welcome to produce some proof to back it up. And you know those details cannot be posted directly in this thread due to forum rules, though BFS did link to the appropriate thread for those who have Premium membership. The information is out. You-know-who is a dirty hoaxer, and ought to be banned, along with anyone and everyone who either helped him or knew about it and said nothing as part of the plan. Yup...not holding my breath though... I've read that whole thread and there's just one post that's hearsay. That's it. No proof of a hoaxer at this time.as a side note I'm just as anxious as the rest of you to hear from the accused. Edited October 7, 2012 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts