• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Elbe Trackway

Come on Odinn, I have always given you the benefit of the doubt, that maybe you are just the 'Devils Advocate', but you totally blew it on this.

You are caught up in Footer talking points, and aren't looking at the facts.

Completely opposite of what you try to portray yourself as. You have officially jumped the shark, and I am scratching you off of my 'Devils Advocate Non Believer' list. You are officially a Footer, and are obviously willing to use deceitful tactics to besmirch a skeptic.

Bad form Footer.
 
No, just stupid to base judgement on circumstantial evidence......doh!!!

It's all circumstantial evidence isn't it? I guess mental habits are hard to break.
 
Drew do you really think I care that you designate me as a footer? :D

Wow. What more circumstantial evidence do you need? An IP address was tracked and matched to user name "Tontar". He obviously doesn't understand the ramifications of this.

There are very few ISPs that group IP addresses in what is called NAT (Network address translation) anymore. It is now used primarliy over networks for businesses and schools to reduce the number of IPs needed to serve a large number of clients. This means that you and perhaps dozens or hundreds of people are using the exact same IP address.

So does Tontar fit that description? No. I'm confident that if you contacted his ISP that they would tell you that he has a unique/fixed IP address that traces right to his modem. Otherwise, what is his defense? That someone was impersonating him? Right.

OJ had a lot of circumstantial evidence against him too. Tontar refuses to defend himself from these accusations and gives cryptic responses like "if only you knew the truth.." and taking the 5th with "I refuse to comment". I thought this was a skeptic's forum. I mean what do you want? No one is sending him to jail..and footers have been convicted of hoaxing with far less incriminating circumstantial evidence than this. Is it because he's not a footer? Do skeptic hoaxers get a free pass? I'm smelling some double standards here.

Actually, I do respect Rockinkt's investigative skills. I think he's the real deal, unlike Longtabber. What does your gut tell you Rock? Are you dubious?
 
Does anyone here think it is immoral for a skeptic to lay down fake Bigfoot tracks in order to expose the gullibility of Bigfoot researchers?

(I'm not assuming or rejecting Tontar's "guilt.")
 
No.

All bigfoot tracks are fake.

Making fake tracks is basically roleplaying -- nothing wrong with that, unless you try to sell them as genuine
 
No one is talking about morality. This is about debunking the tracks. Claiming that all bigfoot tracks are fake doesn't debunk them. And apologizing for a hoaxer making the tracks certainly doesn't debunk them either.
 
debunking what tracks? bigfoot tracks? lol

they are automatically debunked. that is because bigfoot doesn't exist.
 
I still don't think you get it. This is about solving a puzzle. Who laid down the tracks? If you prove who did it, you've debunked the tracks. You know, solved the case. That's what debunking is all about. You can assume they are fake to begin with, if you like. I always do. I never believed the Elbe trackway was authentic. Decent artwork tho, poor execution.
 
Last edited:
the only person that gives a damn about this "puzzle" is apparently you (and delusional bigfoot believers who think Tontar somehow assaulted the very foundation of their world).

The rest of the world sees an article with "bigfoot tracks" in it, promptly roll their eyes, perhaps even laugh to themselves a little, then go about the rest of their day.
 
There's no need to debunk bigfoot tracks."All bigfoot tracks are fake or misidentified" is the null hypothesis until proven otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Then the PGF and all BF evidence has been debunked you say. I think you guys are getting hung up on the word "debunked". Substitute it with the word "proved". I prefer to use science and logic for my proofs. Don't know about you. :)
 
jerrywayne said:
Does anyone here think it is immoral for a skeptic to lay down fake Bigfoot tracks in order to expose the gullibility of Bigfoot researchers?

(I'm not assuming or rejecting Tontar's "guilt.")
Click to expand...

Nope.
If Tontar did place the tracks he's my new hero because he sure made the 'experts' look like the idiots and/or liars they are.
 
Óðinn said:
I still don't think you get it. This is about solving a puzzle. Who laid down the tracks? If you prove who did it, you've debunked the tracks. You know, solved the case. That's what debunking is all about. You can assume they are fake to begin with, if you like. I always do. I never believed the Elbe trackway was authentic. Decent artwork tho, poor execution.
Click to expand...

No one has proven anything regarding bigfoot as a whole or in regards to Tontar. How did they tie the IP address to Tontar specifically? I'm more interested in who is stalking Tontar, does a supposition of guilt justify a legitimate crime in retaliation? Guilty, or not, does the laying of fake tracks warrant exposing someone's identity to people whose sense of judgement seems to leave a lot to be desired? I personally don't think so, whether you had that incontravertible proof or not, it's twisted ethics, and that is what you aren't understanding.
 
Óðinn said:
Then the PGF and all BF evidence has been debunked you say. I think you guys are getting hung up on the word "debunked". Substitute it with the word "proved". I prefer to use science and logic for my proofs. Don't know about you. :)
Click to expand...

Proven you mean, it's being used as an adjective, not a reflective verb. No offense intended, my grammar isn't perfect either. I see it misused discussing the topic and notice it more. It's like nails on a chalk board for me.

Another pet peeve, " I seen it". You also see this phrase misused in discussing bigfoot. Seen can only be used with have, " I have seen it", " I've seen it", or " I saw it".
 
Óðinn said:
Then the PGF and all BF evidence has been debunked you say. I think you guys are getting hung up on the word "debunked". Substitute it with the word "proved". I prefer to use science and logic for my proofs. Don't know about you. :)
Click to expand...
Science and logic? Like putting words in Tontar's mouth?:)
 
GT/CS said:
Nope.
If Tontar did place the tracks he's my new hero because he sure made the 'experts' look like the idiots and/or liars they are.
Click to expand...

I don't care how the footers come out smelling in all this, but I was wondering, is Roger Patterson your hero too? :D
 
Jodie said:
Proven you mean, it's being used as an adjective, not a reflective verb. No offense intended, my grammar isn't perfect either. I see it misused discussing the topic and notice it more. It's like nails on a chalk board for me.

Another pet peeve, " I seen it". You also see this phrase misused in discussing bigfoot. Seen can only be used with have, " I have seen it", " I've seen it", or " I saw it".
Click to expand...

Potato Patato. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom