The Motivation To Hoax

[Guest BFSleuth]

This entire episode deserves to have a good story written about it. From the inception of DDD's announcement and the thread discussing the trackway it makes very interesting reading to go through the revelations step by step. The initial comments hopeful of the validity or outright commenting that it was a valid trackway, to the skeptics who immediately began dropping hints and questioning the trackway, to the revelation it could be a hoax and then the revelation it was a hoax, and now the same skeptics who so vociferously rail against hoaxers are suddenly either silent or born again hoax defenders. It has at times been comical and tragic, but above all entertaining and a revelation of character.

I'm certainly no fan of throwing any individuals under the figurative or literal bus. However, it would be correct and right that the entire story be told. I would be quite comfortable having the real identity of the hoaxers remain correctly concealed, but the forum names should be known. Truth will likely be told in good time.

[Guest]

So the hoaxer is masquerading as a special forces officer? Really, you think this is worse than that? I can think of few things worse than stealing the honor of those fine people.

In real life, yes, but in terms of BF research, Longtabber never tried to hoax evidence to play "Gotcha" with researchers (AFAIK at least).

Maybe the title could be, " Lets see what we can learn so we are more effective in the field ". We're not going to learn new things by throwing person under bus tires.

DR

Derek, we're not accusing you of "defending hoaxing" (at least I'm not, for certian). You've stated your reasons and I understand them. My ire is directed at the hoaxer's confederates and fellow Skeptics who would be baying for proponent blood if one had tried something similar to what this Skeptic has done.

[Drew]

My ire is directed at the hoaxer's confederates and fellow Skeptics who would be baying for proponent blood if one had tried something similar to what this Skeptic has done.

Why would a skeptic care if a Bigfooter got caught hoaxing Bigfoot prints? Isn't that the status quo?

Freeman, BCM, Cripplefoot, Patty.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Drew

[Guest]

Why would a skeptic care if a Bigfooter got caught hoaxing Bigfoot prints? Isn't that the status quo?

Freeman, BCM, Cripplefoot, Patty.

Of which maybe ONE (if that many) has a solid hoax claim. BCM not proven, Cripplefoot inconclusive, and Patty not proven.

[Cotter]

I would be concerned that projects that this person is involved with would be called into question. Could lose several years worth of work.

Additionally, I would be concerned that there are other 'targets' that are on the radar that have yet to be 'hoaxed'. And other researchers, in other areas of 'Footery' are on the cusp of being brought along on another 'gotcha' type debachle.

I don't think the intention of this was ever a 'one and done' had it been successful.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Cotter

[Guest]

Exposing the hoaxer is not just up to me. At this point it's a collective decision by the researchers involved.

JohnC, IMO this is not an eye for an eye kinda thing. It's OK to take the high road. As I said before, a lot of good stuff has come from this. For me personally, and I'm sure for others involved it's been a serious eye opener. In spite of many here saying, ya I knew at the beginning they were fake, I'll tell you straight up the tracks themselves were VERY convincing. There were red flags with the tracks and the track line, and they will be detailed in a statement from Scott when and if he deems necessary, but the tracks themselves were masterfully done IMHO.

This track way will most certainly lead to better more critical research. I don't think that's a bad thing. I can compare it to the Sierra event. Once you get past the anger you need to ask yourself, what can be learned from this. I know I'll never look at tracks the same way again.

DR

Edited October 8, 2012 by Derekfoot

[Cotter]

Derek - will there be any chance for other amateur researchers to have access to your findings on what was unique about this trackway?

[Guest minnie-ear]

I think you can keep this very simple, hoaxing is lying. Period. Since when is lying acceptable? How can anyone justify the perpetrators deeds? You can’t. His machinations cost a lot of people time and money. This is inexcusable. These good people, who are actually trying to uncover this mystery, were taken advantage of. Knowing several of them personally I can say none of them are independently wealthy. None of them are funded.

The only place Elbe has had a problem is here. The information should have never, never been revealed, especially here while the scene was still hot. The investigation was not complete. Your confusion can be understood since you are not working with all the puzzle pieces. If you think you know more, congratulations on your being omniscient, too bad you are wasting your time bashing bigfooters when you could out be doing something constructive with your amazing abilities.

No one is going to share their protocol here. No one is going to share investigative technique. No one is required to reveal their sources or witness information. It’s part of the protocol not to. No one in the bigfoot community owes you anything. No one is required to place at your feet, silver platters of evidence.

Edited October 9, 2012 by AaronD
Inappropriate language

[Guest]

I think the motivation behind the Elbe was to discredit foot prints, and those that analyze them in general. I think the idea was for the believers to get all excited, and for it to become a major event so a skeptic could swoop in, and point out some flaws,and prove it a hoax. Why? To attempt an over all blanket of doubt they could attempt to cast over all that pesky foot print evidence that keeps showing up, and contributing, and rightly so, in the belief of existence.

Didn't I already read somewhere here on the forums, that if Elbe was a hoax, then you could not trust in any foot print evidence after that? I think that statement was made a little prematurely.

Yes I can see the motive here, but it still baffles me,is this a new kind of critical thinking in action?

Edited October 8, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest]

Exposing the hoaxer is not just up to me. At this point it's a collective decision by the researchers involved.

JohnC, IMO this is not an eye for an eye kinda thing. It's OK to take the high road. As I said before, a lot of good stuff has come from this. For me personally, and I'm sure for others involved it's been a serious eye opener. In spite of many here saying, ya I knew at the beginning they were fake, I'll tell you straight up the tracks themselves were VERY convincing. There were red flags with the tracks and the track line, and they will be detailed in a statement from Scott when and if he deems necessary, but the tracks themselves were masterfully done IMHO.

This track way will most certainly lead to better more critical research. I don't think that's a bad thing. I can compare it to the Sierra event. Once you get past the anger you need to ask yourself, what can be learned from this. I know I'll never look at tracks the same way again.

DR

^ this.

Hoaxing sucks somewhat; but from bad comes good, and if it has raised the bar for critical analysis then that is some good.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Attention:

This topic has started to generate reports from the membership. I believe that the topic of this thread is The Motivation To Hoax, not Let's Expose/Not Expose The Hoaxer.

Please, guys - Don't make it necessary to dole out punitive measures and/or close this topic.

If reports continue, the staff will have no choice but to do as we feel necessary to regain control of this topic. You have all been warned. Please get back on topic!

See

[Guest Cervelo]

I can tell you how I could easily end up a "hoaxer"!

I've never felt tracks are very good evidence, they are typically in a very dynamic substance and context of the find has as much bearing on its crediabilty (who,what, where) as anything.

Since we have no Bigfoot feet any opinions about their structure and resulting tracks by any experts, researchers, ect mean little or nothing.

Most of the examples used as benchmarks for comparision are questionable as well.

I believe Bigfoot could exsit and that's based on some personal experience, but based on my lifetime of fishing, hunting, camping and just snooping around have little confidence in most "evidence" attributed to Bigfoot.

Given all that I still have a keen interest in the subject, visit some fourms participate in some but find a home here, I like the balance.

But often the discussions end up with the classic proponents position "if its so easy, go do it" and the skeptics classic "I don't have to, you prove it's real" blah blah blah.....

At some point I might go to the trouble of making some stompers, figure out how to make some rubber feet put them on shoes, just to see how hard it would be to do.

Gone to all the trouble got to take them for a test run.....wow they look pretty good might even fool the "experts".

Was my plan from the beginning to defraud anyone....no....just to see if it could be done.

But now I've got a decision to make, man I could show BFS he's been challenging me for months on tracks and Mulder nothing would make happier to show him it could be done......punking Matt Moneymaker that would be awesome!!

So it could start out as something without any malicious intent and very easily turn bad.

We are a very small community of people and we all contribute to something in ways we may not even be aware of....

I'm not defending any hoaxer or making excuses, we all have to make our own choices based on our own moral compass, but I could see how it could happen if someone took it just a little to far.

[Guest]

Here's the thing. None of us are paid professionals, and this is not a court of law. Nobody's on trial here. If any one of you go out and do the investigation, put your own boots on the ground, then IMO it's up to you if you want to "out" the hoaxer. We all had time invested and I had the most, but It was my choice to spend the time I did. Nobody forced me to go there. Truth be told I was very excited to go for all the obvious reasons, as well as getting the chance to possibly work with Rick Noll again. I've been waiting years for that opportunity. A lot of good things have come from this, a lot of things that have not been mentioned here. We've all learned a lot. One thing is we all have to raise our game, and we will. I seriously think this should be kept in perspective. Nobody got hurt and no one died. Someone made some fake tracks. I'll admit I was very upset at the beginning, but I'm way past that now. I don't want to be involved with screwing up someones lives over a fake set of tracks. That's silly.

This is Bigfoot research. Most of the things we investigate are miss-identification, overactive imaginations, or down right hoaxes. It not like this is something new. I think most of us, myself included take ourselves way to serious sometimes. We have the opportunity to learn more here, and that's what we intend to do, so it would be nice if we can drop the torches and pitch forks and move on to the next "big thing".

DR

Finally a voice of reason in the wilderness!

[Drew]

If I was going to target one of the Finding Bigfoot people, it would have to be Cliff. All of the others at least call a hoax on the show when they see it. Cliff is portrayed as Uber hopeful on the show.

[steenburg]

I wrote this for another thread but I think it applies here to, as motivation is included.

Thomas Steenburg

I had met to write this on the resent Washington track find thread but it has been locked for now so I will just state my 2 cents worth here. As researchers part of the job is to expose hoaxes and the people who perpetrate them. That is part of what being a researcher is all about. It is also one of the things which separates a true researcher from an Advocate. One simple fact that I have learned since I first got involved with this subject in 1978 was the fact that you will encounter fake sighting reports, footprint finds, and all kinds of other weird and wonderful stuff which so many advocates insist must be caused by Sasquatch in one way or the other. The late Paul freeman who I knew well comes to mind and I now fully admit that back in the early to mid 1980s he had me fooled. Meldrum still has me scratching my head on some of his footprint claims. But the man was hoaxing at least part of the time and could very well have been all of the time. Ivan Marx syndrome as I call it still infects a good many people who are in a hurry for what ever reason to draw attention to them selves. Or hoaxers who wish to chuckle at the fact they succeeded in fooling the researchers. The main problem in these cases are researchers whom feel they must not in any way reveal that they may have been taken in. To that I say do not worry about it. Its a learning experience, it will happen. A certain fellow recently up here in British Columbia at Golden Ears Park had taken in quite a few people for a short period of time, myself at first took a great interest in what he was claiming to come across, the first red flags for me was his extraordinary luck with out any real convincing back up. Finally I caught him red handed and exposed his antics, much of which was debated right here on this forum. I guess it is now against forum rules to mention his name but many of you know who I am talking about. The real crime, (for lack of a better word} as far as I am concerned would be if a exposed hoaxer were later on to be taken seriously. That just makes the whole field look foolish and all researchers appear as simple advocates. After all the goal here is to find a answer to a great mystery not push some religious type faith. Researchers have to except the real possibility that the Sasquatch question may very well turn out in the end to nothing more than a fantastic peace of North American folklore. I personally at this point do not be leave that, but as a researcher in search of an answer I have to accept that in the end this may turn out to be the case. If it does end up this way in my life time the howling skeptics who will cry. "I told you so" will not bother me in the slightest. Why? Because I was a researcher in search of the answer, not an advocate pushing a faith. Big difference between the two. Just as there is a big difference between a true skeptic and out right cynic.

Thomas Steenburg

P.S. If the moderators disagree with me moving this post to this thread as well. I understand.