Elbe Trackway

[Cotter]

Noll and Patterson (and Freeman) are interesting purely because they were taken seriously, put themselves forward, and because of the fact they were given a pass solely because they were perceived to be believer-friendly.

None of that applies here: The hoaxer has not been taken seriously (or is claimed not to have been taken seriously); has not shown a desire to place themselves front and centre, and has not been given a pass (if only because someone believes they found a connection to a known-skeptic).

Nobody knew of Wallace or Dickens for years (until they chose to show their hands). And nobody cared. They were doing their own thing in private for their own amusement, partly assuming that nobody else really took their stuff seriously, either -- or at least shouldn't. That seems the much more pertinent analogy for this instance, no?



You can't fake signal. In the context of this torturous analogy, by definition, fakes are noise. The existence of noise has no bearing on the existence of a discernible signal; it is orthogonal to and independent of it. As such your implication is both misplaced and the result of misunderstanding.

I see where I mixed that up. Thx for the clarification.

So. You don't think having researchers spending time on (wasting time) identifying noise is a hinderence on 'real' evidence gathering?

 

[Cotter]

I think you are all missing the point. Couldn't anyone picture those guys out on that beach with $$ for eyes? They are mad that THEY DIDN'T GET FOOLED, not that they got fooled.

I can clearly see your point and agree 100% with you.

If you could show me that is the case.

Wasn't I asked to put up or shut up just a few posts ago?

I won't put it that bluntly, but can you direct me toward ANYTHING that suggests what you stated is true?

Drew - you seem to know a lot about selling casts.

How lucrative is it? What does the industry take in on gross income?

 

[xtifr]

So. You don't think having researchers spending time on (wasting time) identifying noise is a hinderence on 'real' evidence gathering?

"Researchers"? Really? I'd say the evidence is clear that these people are not qualified to use that term, except ironically. Which is, in fact, the only thing we seem to have real evidence for.

Yes, I think exposing these fraudulent so-called "researchers" is more valuable and beneficial than allowing them to waste money and con people in the name of "research".

 

[StankApe]

If we had a "like" feature i would +1000000000000000 that post xtifr

 

[Cotter]

I think it's ok to hoax in order to expose the fact that the self-proclaimed "experts" aren't. I don't think it's ok to hoax in order to defraud the gullible out of their hard-earned dollars. I favor public exposure in the latter case, but not the former. BF's lack of existence is irrelevant.

Is that what we have here? Exposure hoax vs hard earned dollar hoax? How could you know that?

What about the gullible that heard about it and went down there? That collateral damage is OK?

You see, THAT is yet another reason why it's important to figure this scenario out. What were the intentions? Will there be an apology made to those that you yourself feel have been wronged?

It starts with ID'ing the hoaxer. THEN we can go from there as to what the intentions were, the end goal, and what not.

Tontar - WHY are you choosing to not help clear this up?

 

[Drewbot]

I can clearly see your point and agree 100% with you.

If you could show me that is the case.

OK. Go to a Bigfoot Convention, see the casts that are on the tables for sale. See the books on the table for sale. All of those items, are the product of a hoax that the footers didn't figure out, get it? None of those are the product of a hoax that the footers figured out. If they figured out this hoax, then they can't sell casts of those footprints as Bigfoot prints. Too bad too. Because I could have used ELBE#14 and ELBE#34 to round out my collection

 

[StankApe]

I can clearly see your point and agree 100% with you.

If you could show me that is the case.

Wasn't I asked to put up or shut up just a few posts ago?

I won't put it that bluntly, but can you direct me toward ANYTHING that suggests what you stated is true?

Drew - you seem to know a lot about selling casts.

How lucrative is it? What does the industry take in on gross income?

If it's even one solitary dollar made under the guise of selling "authentic Bigfoot casts" it's fraudulent. It would be one thing if they were sold as novelty items. But most casts are promoted as being from REAL BIGFOOT TRACKS! and that's simply not true.

 

[StankApe]

OK. Go to a Bigfoot Convention, see the casts that are on the tables for sale. See the books on the table for sale. All of those items, are the product of a hoax that the footers didn't figure out, get it? None of those are the product of a hoax that the footers figured out. If they figured out this hoax, then they can't sell casts of those footprints as Bigfoot prints. Too bad too. Because I could have used ELBE#14 and ELBE#34 to round out my collection

you mean, of course, refuse to admit publicly they are hoaxes. I suspect most of them know they are peddling falsities. They simply don't care.

 

[rockinkt]

Cotter - you seem to lack a great deal of knowledge about the evidence showing the PGF to be an obvious hoax.
Is it that you are too lazy to do the research - or is it that you disagree with the facts?

You also seem to lack a great deal of knowledge about the Skoocum Cast and the evidence proving that it is an elk lay.
Is it that you are too lazy to do the research - or is it that you disagree with the facts?

 

[Cotter]

"Researchers"? Really? I'd say the evidence is clear that these people are not qualified to use that term, except ironically. Which is, in fact, the only thing we seem to have real evidence for.

Yes, I think exposing these fraudulent so-called "researchers" is more valuable and beneficial than allowing them to waste money and con people in the name of "research".

OK, so I misapplied the word. How about we call them investigators?

I think they have been referred to as that more often anyway.

Do you still feel that way?

 

[StankApe]

What if we call them by their rightful name? "Charlatans, con men, hucksters"

do you still feel the same way?

 

[Cotter]

Cotter - you seem to lack a great deal of knowledge about the evidence showing the PGF to be an obvious hoax.
Is it that you are too lazy to do the research - or is it that you disagree with the facts?

You also seem to lack a great deal of knowledge about the Skoocum Cast and the evidence proving that it is an elk lay.
Is it that you are too lazy to do the research - or is it that you disagree with the facts?

I am not convinced I've been presented with many facts and definitely not all of them.

There's a lot of controversy about who said what, when, where about the PGF and about what a suit should and should not look like.

I come away as inconclusive as we don't have all the info and I wasn't there so I'd have to take someone's word on it.


Skookum. I would lean toward elk lay, but you are correct, I haven't dug into it as much as some. But I have seen compelling aguements from both sides.

I come away as inconclusive as we don't have all the info and I wasn't there so I'd have to take someone's word on it.

Have these facts been compiled in a one-stop location that could settle this without a doubt? (that's rhetorical)

But since this thread is neither about Skookum, nor the PGF, I'd like to stay focused on Elbe, the intentions, the players, and some other stuff if we ever get that far.

 

[Cotter]

What if we call them by their rightful name? "Charlatans, con men, hucksters"

do you still feel the same way?

If that label is accurate I wouldn't.

However, at this point, it is just your strong feeling they are like that.

Have you any evidence to show this?

Well, outside of 'bigfoot doesn't exist'. Because since you can't prove a negative, maybe you could prove something else b/c that's not the only reason they'd be called that....or is it?

 

[xtifr]

Is that what we have here? Exposure hoax vs hard earned dollar hoax? How could you know that?

Because nobody has tried to profit off of it. In fact, I don't see any way that it could have been intended for profit, unless it was done by one of your oh-so-wonderful "researchers".

Even if the primary intent was LOLs and not scientific exposure of the gullibility of the self-proclaimed "experts", the only result was the exposure of the gullibility of the self-proclaimed experts, which is a good thing.

Thus, if we are going to start a witch hunt for the perpetrators, we should confine it to the "experts", because nobody else would deserve to be outed.

What about the gullible that heard about it and went down there? That collateral damage is OK?

Absolutely. How can you possibly blame the hoaxer for the fact that bleevers are foolish and gullible? It's not his/her fault they ignore the facts and rely on myth and near-religious faith in utter nonsense.

That's not collateral damage--that's self-inflicted wounds which could have been avoided by applying even a hint of common sense.

 

[Cotter]

Hi Rockin - You've responded a couple times and haven't answered this (or I missed it).

But...can I ask why you don't care about THIS (the Eble trackway) suspected hoaxer yet you feel very strong about the others you listed? (Your post #317)

Thanks.

Oh Dozing, same question for you as well.

Thx.

 

[xtifr]

Well, outside of 'bigfoot doesn't exist'. Because since you can't prove a negative, maybe you could prove something else b/c that's not the only reason they'd be called that....or is it?

Sophistry. You might as well claim that fairies or unicorns or dragons might exist. Or Russell's teapot^WP. The evidence against bigfoot is too compelling for any sane person to take any other theory seriously. No records, no bones, no scat, no hair, no...evidence. The supposed native myths themselves have been shown to be mythical. Natives never saw this creature, settlers never saw this creature. Sometimes you can reach a reasonable conclusion with less than 100% conclusive evidence. 99.999999999....% evidence is more than good enough for real science.

 

[Cotter]

Because nobody has tried to profit off of it. In fact, I don't see any way that it could have been intended for profit, unless it was done by one of your oh-so-wonderful "researchers".

Even if the primary intent was LOLs and not scientific exposure of the gullibility of the self-proclaimed "experts", the only result was the exposure of the gullibility of the self-proclaimed experts, which is a good thing.

Thus, if we are going to start a witch hunt for the perpetrators, we should confine it to the "experts", because nobody else would deserve to be outed.


Absolutely. How can you possibly blame the hoaxer for the fact that bleevers are foolish and gullible? It's not his/her fault they ignore the facts and rely on myth and near-religious faith in utter nonsense.

That's not collateral damage--that's self-inflicted wounds which could have been avoided by applying even a hint of common sense.

Xti - these are YOUR words " I don't think it's ok to hoax in order to defraud the gullible out of their hard-earned dollars. "

Then you say "How can you possibly blame the hoaxer for the fact that bleevers are foolish and gullible?"

That is a complete turnaround.

Then you go back to the whole 'researcher' thing, which I clarified was my mistake.

And THEN you claim to know the intentions of the hoaxer was not to make money. How could you possibly know that?

The cherry on top is you mention common sense at the end of your post.

With that said, type what you want, I'm done engaging you. You're lack of consistency in your position and your application of assumptions as fact discredits you.

 

[Jodie]

i think you are all missing the point. Couldn't anyone picture those guys out on that beach with $$ for eyes? They are mad that they didn't get fooled, not that they got fooled.

^this

 

[Jodie]

Hi Rockin - You've responded a couple times and haven't answered this (or I missed it).

But...can I ask why you don't care about THIS (the Eble trackway) suspected hoaxer yet you feel very strong about the others you listed? (Your post #317)

Thanks.

Oh Dozing, same question for you as well.

Thx.

Because we don't know who it is. Why did they think it was Tontar? I heard something about an IP address an e-mail but I'm not clear on how that made Tontar the hoaxer.

 

[xtifr]

Xti - these are YOUR words " I don't think it's ok to hoax in order to defraud the gullible out of their hard-earned dollars. "

Then you say "How can you possibly blame the hoaxer for the fact that bleevers are foolish and gullible?"

That is a complete turnaround.

No, the hoaxer is not taking money. In fact, I fail to see any way that the hoaxer can be accused of profiting off this hoax.

I have nothing against the gullible losing money, because you can't stop human nature. I have something against people who take their money. But the Elbe hoaxer clearly isn't in the latter category. (Unless, as I suggested, it was one of the so-called "experts" who really perpetrated the hoax.)

And THEN you claim to know the intentions of the hoaxer was not to make money. How could you possibly know that?

How about the fact that there wasn't any money made by anyone involved? (Except, perhaps, by some of the so-called "experts".)

If the person who you have repeatedly accused of perpetrating this hoax is actually the person responsible, perhaps you can point out one single way in which that person has profited monetarily? Otherwise, your argument is a red herring.

eta: actually, I suppose you could claim that the gas stations along the way probably profited from the gullible who went to check out the tracks. If you can show any plausible evidence that anyone with an interest in those gas stations was involved in the hoax, I'd support outing them.