Jump to content

The Truth About Elbe


Matt Pruitt
 Share

Recommended Posts

For the record, I equate a bigfoot hoaxer with someone who writes computer viruses. Get a life. As far as being an "experiment" to test the experts, then who the hell are the bigfoot experts? Veteran bigfoot researchers showed up, but what makes them the litmus test for authenticating the tracks? Their task was to document the trackway and weigh the evidence, then offer their opinions. If the intent of the hoax was to knock the so-called experts down a peg or 2 then you're just vindictive and have carried the debate too far. An actual experiment would be what Matt Crowley did with his fake bigfeet. Use them, document the results and post your analysis. A hoax is a psychological experiment to make monkeys out of your opponents. Or like an arsonist, you just like to watch your creation spread from afar.

What I don't get, is why these tracks weren't dismissed immediately because of the human step length. If you have to wear big fake feet to create the tracks, then it's game over. The stride length relative to the foot length makes or breaks a trackway. I did think that Tontar made some nice looking feet, but he never achieved the required step length nor the dynamics a real foot would show in a compliant substrate. No toe off. But the experts seemed preoccupied with the feet & toes and at first missed the bigger picture. In the end, Tontar failed too. So it was a draw, except Tontar was the bigger loser here.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would classify any track way found in a more densely populated area to be highly suspect if not accompanied by consistent visual confirmation...and those do exist in the BFRO reports. If I'm recalling correctly too, the distance between the tracks was within human limits...another red flag. I do find myself agreeing with Ms. Ketchum on one point she made recently. The BF research community tends to overlook evidence we've already learned, which has contributed to confusion and errors. This might be an example of that. Which is not to minimize the hard work that went into exposing this hoax, but only to point out we all need to maybe remember our "known-knowns" the next time something like this comes along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the Bigfoot was just slowly meandering along the beach, strolling if you will, and wasn't fully extending it's gait?

No, we are talking about the criteria for a hoax. What distinquishes BF from a hoax? Short steps.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drew....seeing as you would not likely to know which it was, I'd be wary of it. Unless, as I said, you've got some corroboration. As I said too, examples of that exists. At the bottom of it though, all we've ever had to date are probabilities to consider. And yeah, some of our meters need recalibrating on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tontar,

I have no idea who made the tracks but if they are your masterpiece then you did a great job showing to the bigfoot community how easily the so-called leaders in the field can be fooled. Of course, most of them refuse to accept that fact but hey, you can only do what you can do. The rest is up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're human they can be fooled. That should be common sense.

What this boils down to is malicious intent and deception with a person here on the forum against others on the forum.

It's like showing a person how they can be robbed- that would be a learning experience. Actually robbing them is altogether different.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to confirmation bias.

They should have went there looking to find out how these track were faked.

They ignored all logic and called them genuine.

Don't kill the messenger.

How many of these "investigations" happen every year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In certain people's defense, as DR, for instance...He may have been excited about the prospect of them being real, but I can attest to the fact that he was on the fence, and was pointing out examples of how they may have been faked. I was really impressed by his knowledge of wildlife, in general, and how thorough he was in his particular investigation.

The initial 'breaking news' had pics of human tracks, though, and I thought it deliberately misrepresented the whole track-line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to confirmation bias.

They should have went there looking to find out how these track were faked.

They ignored all logic and called them genuine.

Don't kill the messenger.

How many of these "investigations" happen every year?

I think they called them genuine for a few days to a week at best. Other than a few fringe forums like this one, no one ever heard of the Elbe Trackway. The investigators didn't exactly shout from the top of a mountain "we got us a bigfoot!"

Bias goes both ways, doesn't it? Looking for evidence of "hoax" is just as biased as looking for evidence of "creature" imo. Investigators are human beings and therefore carry certain biases. They are not machines. In the end bias didn't matter. The evidence didn't hold up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to confirmation bias.

They should have went there looking to find out how these track were faked.

They ignored all logic and called them genuine.

Don't kill the messenger.

How many of these "investigations" happen every year?

There were also those that didn't show any confirmation bias, so what's the justification towards them? Excuses, excuses.

I only see a board member who maliciously duped other board members here.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Well Rogue I am not offering any excuses or justification. Let me say that I have always appreciated your dialog and perseverance.

Regardless of who made the tracks...... they were fake.

It likely was a person who thinks all tracks are fake.

The investigators came on the scene and declared they were real.

The pictures the investigators posted were misleading.

The investigators were exposed as questionable.

Then they found out they were fake and cried foul.

Now the community is mad at the supposed track maker.

Why are they mad at the track maker?

Why does the community not question the investigators?

A few important questions are:

How many times has this happened before?

What can we do different to keep this from happening again?

If we ever want to be taken with any degree of seriousness then we must be honest.

M

Edited by Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different investigators do different things, and they certainly didn't all jump the gun in this case. If you're expecting uniformity or perfection across the board in this field then you'll be waiting forever.

These people do research on their own time and don't owe us anything. They're not our representatives or our employees either, so why start making demands? The best way to achieve results to your satisfaction is to just do it yourself.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they didn't "all" jump the gun then please tell me who didn't jump the gun and who did jump the gun?

This will get me on the right track.

Thanks in advance.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...