Jump to content

The Truth About Elbe


Matt Pruitt
 Share

Recommended Posts

This topic is now open again.

I want to make it very clear that we are just an outlet for the posting of information about Bigfoot and the Bigfoot community. We are not a research organization, nor do we take a stand on either side of a topic.

From the BFF Rules and Guidelines:

Most importantly, BFF is not a research organization and never will be - it is simply a place for people to discuss Bigfoot. The BFF, its owners and Staff are not responsible for the content of BFF - if you find it objectionable, inaccurate or incredulous, take it up with the individual who posted it, don't blame the forum.

Please keep your comments respectable. Should this devolve into anti-social commentary, the topic may be closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thx Matt. Good work.

However, I am awaiting a return volley.

Don't hold your breath...

mesabe wrote:

I agree completely, mesabe... :) I think the discussion threads/analysis of the PGF would be better-off if Tontar, and one or two other "skeptics", were put on 'Ignore' by the Bigfoot proponents.

As it stands now...there is a lot of good analysis buried within many pages of Tontar's and kitakaze's posts, along with the responses they've gotten.

The problem with that, Sweaty, as always, is that leaving Tontar, (or any number of other equally [iMO] shady characters) unchallenged is that some newbie who doesn't know the score might page by, read their BS, and think it has validity.

This topic is now open again.

I want to make it very clear that we are just an outlet for the posting of information about Bigfoot and the Bigfoot community. We are not a research organization, nor do we take a stand on either side of a topic.

Does that mean that BFF has no responsibility to police members posting in bad faith with material they know is untrue, and who are abusing the forums in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and discord, interfering with legitimate research efforts?

I submit that BFF doesn't have to take a side on the debate, but absolutely must take a stand for integrity.

From the BFF Rules and Guidelines:

Most importantly, BFF is not a research organization and never will be - it is simply a place for people to discuss Bigfoot. The BFF, its owners and Staff are not responsible for the content of BFF - if you find it objectionable, inaccurate or incredulous, take it up with the individual who posted it, don't blame the forum.

How does that square with the "civility" rule? We cannot use certain words (such as "liar") even when they are provably accurate.

I ask not as a challenge to Mod authority, but to seek to understand an apparent paradox in the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean that BFF has no responsibility to police members posting in bad faith with material they know is untrue, and who are abusing the forums in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and discord, interfering with legitimate research efforts?

I submit that BFF doesn't have to take a side on the debate, but absolutely must take a stand

Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something like, if you come here to join up and benefit from information and use it to purposely hoax member/researchers, then count on having your credentialed membership divinely dropped on you like a hot rock fastball thrown by a Bigfoot.

Hoaxing is uncivil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that Matt is trying to get to the bottom of the Elbe trackway situation, but his most recent posts revisiting the situation, as well as his new blog report on the matter are little more than a rehash of previously reported and released bits of information. The fact is, all of that is old news. Nothing new has been added to the overall picture, or evidence, if you will. What is new is that even though Matt seems like a genuinely nice guy, and is well spoken and well written, he is only human, and subject to normal human emotions and reactions. What this new crusade is is a knee jerk reaction to the Erickson Project videos blowing up in other threads, and it is my humble opinion that all of this is 1) an attempt to redirect attention away from a (hoax) situation that he himself is associated with, and 2) retaliation for my comment posted in the Mathilda thread supporting the conclusion that the Mathilda bigfoot clearly mirrors Chewbacca.

So what is new information about the Elbe trackway, which conclusively proves anything? Nothing. Back in what, September or October, Matt found that the reports were sent to the BFRO from the same IP address that I had sent messages to Daniel Perez? That my IP address matches the BFRO report IP address? We have known that all along. It has been posted here within the forums numerous times, and has made for some grand speculation. It has been published in the Bigfoot Times, twice in fact, making for just as grand speculation. But that’s it.

I have made no secret of my interest in the PGF, whether it shows an authentic sasquatch or a man in a suit. That’s my primary area of interest with regards to bigfoot. That too has been no secret. I have also made no secret of the fact that I value practical tests over simple theory when discussing aspects of “Pattyâ€, or of anything else of mystery for that matter. While discussing or debating various aspects of the PGF, or other points of discussion regarding what constitutes reasonable proof versus simple theory, or unsupportable theory, I have explained why I come to my own personal opinions and conclusions, which are sometimes based on actual practical experiments. Again, I have made no secret of those practical experiments, and have openly posted what I have done and how I have gone about it, and what my conclusions are based on those experiments.

As Matt has posted, I have also made a set of fake feet to see how easy or how hare it would be to stomp around in, whether it is humanly possible to take long or short strides, and so on. I was unwilling to simply debate with people from the keyboard, with no practical knowledge on my part being used as ammunition against their similar lack of practical knowledge. So I made a set of fake feet to actually learn how easy or hard it would be to stomp around. And since we’re being open about it all, I’ll post a picture of one. As you can see, it is made from flotation foam. But as you can also see, it is not painted with anything, not refined into something more convincing or realistic. They served their purpose, showed me that it was possible for me, or anyone else, to easily make fake feet and walk around with them. Additionally, the first time I wore them, they sort of self destructed, then toes started tearing off, one of them coming off completely. But as they were simply a proof of concept, which was whether someone, anyone, could fabricate fake feet, and walk around in fake feet, they served their purpose and have been relegated to the back 40. I never made a new and improved version of those, and had no compelling reason to since they served their purpose.

Along the lines of creating tests to confirm or disprove debate topics. Recently there was a discussion about how well Patty’s feet could be used as a ruler, and the idea was presented that her rearward foot would be closer to the camera, so it would appear larger, and thus not be reliable as a ruler. I mocked up a test for that, too photos, and posted them to the BFF. Again, tests designed to solve a particular debate point within the forum threads of interest to me.

How that sort of thing goes from testing debate points into all out hoaxing is beyond me. It’s a jump that has no basis and no precedent. It’s a jump that tries to make a nice, tidy package out of a situation that is not so easily resolved. It’s binary thinking, and it’s classic behavior within these very forums. The bigfoot world seems to love the blame game, pointing fingers at people they don’t like, trying to take the spotlight off of something they want to keep hidden in the shadows, looking after their own interests and trying to find sacrifices and fall guys to protect their own. It’s pretty transparent. Within minutes of me posting my agreement that the Erickson sasquatch was a dead ringer for Chewbacca, I received a text from Matt. I was not near my phone at the time so I didn’t see it. Within minutes of that, he had created this new Elbe thread. 100% knee jerk reaction. Matt is human, he is invested in the bigfoot world personally and financially, and has ties within the community. The question is, will he be as diligent in his investigation of the Erickson videos as he has been with the Elbe tracks? Certainly he knows the people involved with that far more intimately than he knows me or the people I know. Who will end up as the fall guy in that situation, which regardless of who is made to appear as a victim of other unscrupulous people, the principals will certainly be painted as completely ethical, above board, honest folks who would never hoax anyone, and thus be allowed to remain within the bigfoot community scott free.

I suspect the Mathilda hoax will go the way of the Temagami hoax, and the Ben Matine hoax, and all the other hoaxes that emanate from within the inner circles of the bigfoot world, which is that it will be smoothed over for now, other targets will be fired upon to redirect the heat away from it, and eventually history will be modified to paint all the respected BFF and BFRO members involved as being duped by someone else, and allowed to live to do it again some other day.

But back to Elbe. You have nothing more to add to the mystery now than you had way back when, and it’s squat, for lack of a better word. You have an IP address match. Close but no cigar. You have no idea who made the tracks, and hey, who knows, maybe they are real and not man made, who knows? But you don’t know who made them, and likely never will. While you kind of sort of almost but not quite held a confidence for a few months, I believe that I can hold a confidence for an awful lot longer than that. And what feeds my resolve on protecting that confidence is that no matter how much you speculate that you “know†who did what, you are so far off base that it’s funny. Genuinely funny. You really don’t have a clue. All you have is an IP address, and that’s it. That’s not evidence of a hoax, nor of who may have been involved with it.

If you're serious about cleaning house, then it starts from within, not from without. I'm sure you know what I mean by that.

Edited by Tontar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very easy way to confirm Matt's claims would be to allow the Forum moderators to confim the IP address history of where Tontar has logged in from. That would clear it up immediately. If the IP address posted in the screen shots on Matt's blog (71.xxx.xxx.xxx) matches what the forum moderators claim Tontar logged in from it is game over and proves that you were involved without a shadow of a doubt.

Would you be willing to permit the forum moderators to do that Tontar? I'm curious ;)

Edited by BipedalCurious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to address the following comments. After these are posted, there will be no discussion of staff actions.

Does that mean that BFF has no responsibility to police members posting in bad faith with material they know is untrue, and who are abusing the forums in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and discord, interfering with legitimate research efforts?

I submit that BFF doesn't have to take a side on the debate, but absolutely must take a stand for integrity.

The staff of The Bigfoot Forums takes a stand for integrity every day according to our rules and guidelines. We do not have a responsibility to police our membership because we don't know if they're posting in bad faith with untrue material. First, how on Earth do you expect our forum staff to police thousands of members while they have jobs, family obligations and other real life things that take precedence in their lives? How are we supposed to know if someone is posting in bad faith? We can't - and wont - attempt to determine someone's intentions, the truthfulness of any material they present or their motives. Nobody can know everything about the claims made by our membership. Everyone is allowed to post their content as long as they abide by our rules and guidelines. The forum staff's responsibility is to enforce those rules, not screen posts for accuracy or truthfulness. To expect us to do so is completely unreasonable.

You speak from what you've read and the opinion you've formed after doing your own research. This is how it should be. You have assumed that everyone feels as you do, although others may feel differently or may still be undecided about certain events. The staff cannot determine who is abusing the forum proactively, as our responsibility is to react to violations of the rules and guidelines after they occur. How are we to determine if a member is sowing confusion and discord? And we certainly cannot determine if someone is attempting to interfere with research efforts. How do you expect us to accomplish all of this when we can't possibly judge a person through a Bigfoot forum?

You are welcome to your own opinion, but it is unfair to expect the staff to moderate the forum under such impossible expectations. We can't judge a member for what you believe their intentions were. While the member posting may know what they are posting is untrue, we can't moderate truth because we don't always know the truth. Any attempts to do so would only make this into a forum driven by what we consider to be the truth. Why would you even expect us to do so? The forum's rules are in place to allow the membership to question such things as the truthfulness of claims presented, who's sowing confusion and discord, who's posting in bad faith and anything else. We can't do your job for you, nor will we.

Since your expectations above are impossible for the staff to accomplish proactively, perhaps you are saying that you expect the staff to police a particular member based on your opinion and any recent evidence presented against them. I'm sorry, but there are still many things that can happen, such as the presentation of further evidence or evidence presented in response to any claims that may have been made. We cannot take action based on an emotional response to evidence presented by the membership. The fact is that nobody truly knows exactly what happens in situations between our members. There are three sides to every story - Yours, theirs and the truth. We are not judges, so we only do as is expected of us, which is to enforce the forum rules.

How does that square with the "civility" rule? We cannot use certain words (such as "liar") even when they are provably accurate.

There is no paradox in the rules. It's clear that you cannot call someone a liar. However, that doesn't mean that you can't question the validity of their claims. Our members are pretty sharp, so I'm sure that they will find a way to convey their point without violating the rules of civility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to Elbe. You have nothing more to add to the mystery now than you had way back when, and it’s squat, for lack of a better word. You have an IP address match. Close but no cigar. You have no idea who made the tracks, and hey, who knows, maybe they are real and not man made, who knows? But you don’t know who made them, and likely never will. While you kind of sort of almost but not quite held a confidence for a few months, I believe that I can hold a confidence for an awful lot longer than that. And what feeds my resolve on protecting that confidence is that no matter how much you speculate that you “know†who did what, you are so far off base that it’s funny. Genuinely funny. You really don’t have a clue. All you have is an IP address, and that’s it. That’s not evidence of a hoax, nor of who may have been involved with it.

Tontar, a really simple question from me if you don't mind.

Did you make those tracks at Elbe ?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Thanks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response, Tontar. I appreciate the kind words that you included in your post, and I also found you to be a genuinely nice, enjoyable person during our lengthy phone call. As such, I would like to keep this as civil and as calm a conversation as possible. Let me address some of your points:

1) I am not in any way involved with the Erickson Project. I have spoken to one (1) of their members on the telephone about a completely unrelated subject. I have never met, nor have I spoken to Adrian Erickson. I have only seen the evidence that has been presented online: The Pancake Video, released briefly by Cryptomundo, The Sleeping Sasquatch clip, released along with Ketchum's release, and the stills that Bill released on the BFF.

Accusing me of being associated with a hoax is unfounded.

2) I did respond to your post, but not because you agreed with Bill's opinion. I have NO issues with what Bill's opinion is; I have issues with the fact that Bill violated a professional agreement. That's the thing that I was drawing attention to. You said that said you were in favor of that violation. I would posit that if your opinion is that personal and/or professional agreements (confidences) should be broken in the name of truth, then I should be allowed to do the same with regard to the Elbe event.

3) Certainly, I will concede that the IP match doesn't prove that you made the fabricated "feet", nor does it prove that you laid the tracks yourself. It does prove, however, that either you or someone in your household sent in the first emails and reports of the "tracks". It proves that you are involved. I don't think that anyone could logically conclude, after seeing the many examples of your IP address, that you were NOT involved.

I fully disclosed the truth about my investigation into this event. Are you willing to fully disclose the truth about your involvement with this event?

Edited by Matt Pruitt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully disclosed the truth about my investigation into this event. Are you willing to fully disclose the truth about your involvement with this event?

No I am not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something like, if you come here to join up and benefit from information and use it to purposely hoax member/researchers, then count on having your credentialed membership divinely dropped on you like a hot rock fastball thrown by a Bigfoot.

At a minimum!

Hoaxing is uncivil.

At a minimum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I am not.

Fair enough.

ETA: Here's another question that I think would be valid to ask:

Are you choosing not to disclose information based on an agreement that you have with another individual or individuals?

Edited by Matt Pruitt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...