The Truth About Elbe

[SweatyYeti]

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?

You mean the 'messenger' who will not talk with his fellow Discussion Board members?

[roguefooter]

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

I believe Barackman didn't jump the gun, and he was most likely the primary target. Thom Powell remained pretty skeptical. Rick Noll jumped the gun, same with Randles and Joe Beelart. Not sure of the others that were actually there.

[Guest]

You have an IP address match.

Hi Tontar - just to clarify (I'm still catching up on the whole thread) - I see you've conceded an IP match.

Did you make the various reports (to Cliff, the BFRO, etc) regarding the Elbe trackway?

Ta,

FG

[Guest]

I've asked this question before, but hasnt been answered. In the case of a Malicious Hoax, that being one perpetrated to shame the other sides' or particular individual or individuals on that side and to discredit them, along with proving you have larger testes of course,, What are the rules? I mean when does the clock start on the correct diagnosis of real or not etc. And, who runs the clock? And how long does the researchers have before they are considered to be totally snookered? Is it a sliding scale where researchers have immediately on sight proclaim a hoax, and are penalized per minute, hour or day thereafter that they don't? Additionally, Is drive, or flight time deducted from that time, or time used for real world things like children sicknesses etc, or should researchers have to understand what the real important things are in life as prescribed by the hoaxing party or parties?

Can a pyschological scale be determined to gauge and record the personal and public expressions of optimism regarding the hoax, and does the investigating parties gain or lose grade points depending on their degree of stoical reserve or outward positive or happy facial expressions? Does the hoaxing committee decide these beforehand or is it a group decision on the fly based on the vagaries of the individual researchers who show up, a more personalized approach which would not be as restricting and could take the individual personalities of the researchers into account. And when does the time run out and the hoax is declared a success and the researchers are declared fools? I just think these points should be addressed. It is apparently all about winning and losing and most would like to know which they are. And for female researchers and hoaxers of course please ignore the last stated reason for hoaxing above.

[Guest]

I find it interesting that the investigators who were at the site early versus the ones who were never there or there after the track way was trampled have different opinions. Maybe you should ask those investigators that thought them fake from the beginning to list out their reasoning. If it is just the surrounding story, emails, ip addys and such, then only one principal investigator on the scene had that information. I saw only two things in all of the tracks, casts and trackway that might have indicated a hoax. I did not present human track photographs as being Bigfoot unless the whole trackway was made by a human. I photographed the tracks in sequence. Presenting material on the BFF is not a crime scene or scientific journal. It is a discussion forum. Discussions surrounding the subject of Bigfoot.

How it was done, if it was a hoax, may be very complicated if the hoaxer refuses to admit and explain their process. That would also be contrary to what other skeptics have claimed, that it would be very easy to make them. This to me is a telling part of it all. They do not want to show what they did because it was hard to do, not easy to fake a Bigfoot trackway.

If you were not there, did not see the actual trackway, talk directly with the investigators at the scene, you basically can only offer an uninformed opinion of what has been discussed here on the BFF..

[roguefooter]

people booger- IMO I'd say it would be best if no conclusions (or even gut feelings) were expressed until all is said and done, after a thorough examination and investigation. Like working a crime scene- everything stays confidential until the end.

[Guest]

I think the truth of the Elbe track way is a group of people got together, and planned to make a fool of some investigators. I think they where pretty excited, and thought they had a slam dunk with the initial reaction to the find. Some may have even made some premature statements, or proclamations of a hoax. Then within a day or two the people investigating where questioning what they where seeing. I recall right off the bat where they started, and where they finished had them wondering, and doubting. Some of the investigators started out hopeful, and where excited, so what? Now we see the type who would condone such a thing desperately trying to salvage a little bit of that "gotcha" they where so desperate to achieve.

All a thing like this does is hurt credibility on both sides. If I was involved I would be ashamed of trying to do such a thing. Do they honestly think pulling off a hoax would do anything constructive? I think we are all aware that hoax's can and do occur, thank you, none of us needs any proof of that. Does this mean all track evidence is a hoax, and therefore no track way can ever been taken as serious evidence of an unknown bi-ped walking around? Of course not, location, numbers, consistency from coast to coast, and amount of time such tracks have been recorded pretty much makes the odds of them all being hoax's slim at best.

All the elbe has done is shown us how far unethical self proclaimed skeptics will go in an attempt to validate their beliefs regarding Bigfoot, and how little respect and integrity they have that they would consider a "gotcha" approach. For me, it lessons the impact of their statements, and arguments on the subject, because now I know exactly what type of people I am dealing with.

I do not know if Tontar made the tracks, but I will bet a coffee he made the feet. That is just my humble opinion on it all.

[steenburg]

I have nothing but contempt for hoaxers, and I do not care one iota as to the reasoning or self justification for attempting such things. In my opinion what happened at Elbe was an example of a common investigation by researchers whom speak their minds and express hope that maybe we have something of merit here, then as they investigate further they begin to see things which send up red flags and doubt. I am happy that this case was exposed by researchers whom through investigation found out the cause of the Elbe track way. Not some hoaxer coming out after the event had been excepted and declared authentic by all those involved in the investigation, to cry and point Ha, Ha we got you! In fact it was a researcher whom exposed and got the hoaxer. Well done.

Thomas Steenburg

[adam2323]

^^^ Plussed!

[Guest]

^^ That's true. But I don't imagine any sires were blaring on the way to investigate these tracks. Just that image alone is cracking me up. Here comes the BFRO-Mobile lights flashing and sirens blaring. Faster, faster! We have to get there and confirm this before someone reveals it as a hoax.

Something like this?

..

Yes, I am in one of those moods.

I hate to say it, but any evidence collected by somebody, short of proving it through DNA, is suspect to me now. And if the evidence wasn't witnessed being left, it is even more suspect.

And this is exactly why this filthy hoax was done...to "poison the well" of evidence and cast doubt.

That's all Skeptics can do, is cast doubt, because they have no countervailing evidence to proffer for their position against BF.

Don't fall for it. One faked trackway (or a five, or fifty) does not invalidate ALL trackways. Nor does one inconclusive hair, etc.

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.

So you counter alleged "confirmation bias" by inducing confirmation bias in the opposite direction?

And you are factually incorrect about the bias to begin with. Both Derek AND DDA both stated that they had suspicions from the beginning, but, based on their initial inspection, that the trackway looked good enough to at least follow up on.

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

Yes they were.

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

a Skeptic in a deliberate attempt to "gotcha" investigators...it didn't work.

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

False. They said their initial findings were that they might be real. They also voiced questions and doubts. This is on the public record, and you need to stop misrepresenting the situation.

The pictures the investigators posted were misleading.

The pictures were what they were.

The investigators were exposed as questionable.

The investigators are the ones who exposed the hoax and declared the trackway fake. How is that "questionable"?

Then they found out they were fake and cried foul.

Wrong. See above. Again, stop misrepresenting what Derekfoot and DDA said.

Now the community is mad at the supposed track maker.

For darn good reasons. It was a malicious and calculated attempt to "gotcha" investigators and sow discord among proponents.

Why are they mad at the track maker?

See above.

Why does the community not question the investigators?

Because they did nothing wrong.

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

M

Considering your continued mis-representation of the positions and statements of Derekfoot and DDA, I find this statement darkly ironic.

[Guest]

If you were not there, did not see the actual trackway, talk directly with the investigators at the scene, you basically can only offer an uninformed opinion of what has been discussed here on the BFF..

Well, yeah, but that's the BFF, and 99% of its content.

In fact, that could be a new tagline "The BFF - uninformed opinion of what's been discussed!"

[Drew]

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.

Whoever made the feet, should have gotten me to walk the walk.

I've got a massive stride length. I've never been to the PNW, so put me up, fly me out there, get me an Elbe-Burger, and tell me where to walk. I'll even build a Bigfoot house out of Driftwood for fifty bucks.

(Sarcasm duly noted I hope)

Finding Bigfoot should have rolled with this, called it a hoax, made it look like they were real investigators, even put the hoaxer on TV and make him a star.

They could have a spin-off show called Hoaxing Bigfoot.

Actually, forget it, with Matt Moneymaker running around in Vibrams, and Bobo jumping out of his shorts over coyote sounds, it's kind of the same thing init?

[HOLDMYBEER]

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

The information developed by Matt is an investigative gift. The real issue is whether it will be used to its full potential.

According to the London thread there are people here who swear by that trackway. I have already posted about something that I think I see in one of the tracks. I have been awaiting publication of the remainder of the photographs. The parallels between Elbe and London are fairly obvious:

1. Both trackways involve Cliff Barackman. Cliff believes he was specifically targeted for Elbe. It is my understanding the original reporting party at London was a dog walker, hence not particularly targeting anyone. I can only suggest that after his high profile at London he became a target for Elbe.

2. Both trackways are along side man-made reservoirs that afford a soft and stable soil for documenting a physical record that will remain for viewing.

3. Both locations are heavily trafficked by people. I have never been to Elbe but I take from the thread that people commonly walk or drive the area. The trackway was visible from persons above on the road? The London trackway was at a popular reservoir that is used for all sorts of recreational activities. I have run and ridden my bike along side that reservoir (at the spot of the trackway) a number of times during the 80's and 90's although not for several years. I can only guess the number of persons in the area has grown since then. The London location is a spot that guarantees discovery. I just gather the same about Elbe. Neither place is particularly 'wild'. Both locations are close to public vehicular access.

4. The trackways don't make a lot of sense. I admit I did not personally see either trackway but the map drawn of the London trackway looks less like someone moving from point A to B and more like someone trying to leave tracks in a loop. I am told the trackway at Elbe seemed to meander.

5. Both trackways were 'discovered' in a well-publicized fashion, at least to the BF crowd. Word was put out and a number of people responded, affording a hoaxer the opportunity to oversee response from his or her desktop.

6. Apparently there has been other mention by Tontar as to an allegation of connection between the two trackways. Tontar at JREF: "Also, in jest, following the prodding of another BFF member, I posted something that said I made the Londontracks, wasn't exactly happy with how they turned out, so I came up with a better process for making feet, and then made the Elbe tracks, and once finished with those went back to making my Patty replication suit. It was a bit of an elaboratepost, spinning a broad yarn, and I mentioned at the end that it was fiction. Apparently Moneymaker was pointed at it, which led to his posting what he posted on Twitter. It's truly been an inconvenient soap opera for me, which is why I tend to avoid commenting on it."

Seems to be a lot of smoke but certainly none of the above leads to a conclusion. I only suggest that the study of London continue in light of Elbe and Matt's information. I would really like to see photos of all the tracks at London. Last I checked Cliff had posted a few of the images but most were not available.

[dmaker]

Something like this?

..

Yes, I am in one of those moods.

And this is exactly why this filthy hoax was done...to "poison the well" of evidence and cast doubt.

That's all Skeptics can do, is cast doubt, because they have no countervailing evidence to proffer for their position against BF.

Don't fall for it. One faked trackway (or a five, or fifty) does not invalidate ALL trackways. Nor does one inconclusive hair, etc.

So you counter alleged "confirmation bias" by inducing confirmation bias in the opposite direction?

And you are factually incorrect about the bias to begin with. Both Derek AND DDA both stated that they had suspicions from the beginning, but, based on their initial inspection, that the trackway looked good enough to at least follow up on.

Yes they were.

a Skeptic in a deliberate attempt to "gotcha" investigators...it didn't work.

False. They said their initial findings were that they might be real. They also voiced questions and doubts. This is on the public record, and you need to stop misrepresenting the situation.

The pictures were what they were.

The investigators are the ones who exposed the hoax and declared the trackway fake. How is that "questionable"?

Wrong. See above. Again, stop misrepresenting what Derekfoot and DDA said.

For darn good reasons. It was a malicious and calculated attempt to "gotcha" investigators and sow discord among proponents.

See above.

Because they did nothing wrong.

Considering your continued mis-representation of the positions and statements of Derekfoot and DDA, I find this statement darkly ironic.

Mulder, you somehow managed to misquote me. I never said those words. Somehow you managed to put my name to PacNWSquatchers words.

To be specific, these are the words I mean:

"I hate to say it, but any evidence collected by somebody, short of proving it through DNA, is suspect to me now. And if the evidence wasn't witnessed being left, it is even more suspect."

Love the BFRO-mobile though.

I would have never said those words. I don't believe that BF exists, so ALL evidence is suspect to me.

Edited March 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

^Ok, I ran it back down and it turns you are correct.

I stand by my response, regardless of who actually posted the words in question.