• 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

Muldur,

RayG has presented a timeline showing your claim that the "experts" were suspicious from the start is false. Are you going to admit that RayG is correct and that your assertion is false?

Well, are you?
 
Bigfoot true believers will learn nothing from this episode. They will assume it is a special, isolated case. For instance, they will argue that it has nothing to do with (the even less qualified) John Green's proclamations concerning the trackways on Blue Creek Mountain Road in 1967. Trackways, btw, endorsed by Meldrum with no doubt.
 
How believers react when they find facts against their beliefs? Deny and build excuses. So, radiocarbon dating shows the Shroud of Turin is not from the times of Jesus? Oh, the sampling was not representative, there were contamination issues, blah blah and blah...

So the fake footprints fooled your experts? Oh, but we found they were forges, so we rock, we're good, hoaxes are detected... Are there any "important" pieces of evidence in bigfootery without that fishy smell of hoax?
 
I made a point at BFF that any proponent who embellishes a Bigfoot report, or any investigator who adds any extra detail into an investigation, is a hoaxer. I wonder how many Bigfoot reports have extra embellishments. Once a report submitter get to tell his/her story, you don't think they are trying to impress the investigator?

Investigator: Did you see eyeshine?
Reporter: Yeah yeah that's the ticket!
 
jerrywayne said:
Bigfoot true believers will learn nothing from this episode. They will assume it is a special, isolated case. For instance, they will argue that it has nothing to do with (the even less qualified) John Green's proclamations concerning the trackways on Blue Creek Mountain Road in 1967. Trackways, btw, endorsed by Meldrum with no doubt.
Click to expand...

Interesting issue.
If you go to the book review "wild men" at the Relict Hominoid inquiry, and listen to the end, you will hear a BFRO field investigator say that Meldrum is very critical and only accepts about 1/20 of what they send him.

Elsewhere Meldrum has written that hoaxing is rare.

More truthiness.
 
Drewbot said:
I made a point at BFF that any proponent who embellishes a Bigfoot report, or any investigator who adds any extra detail into an investigation, is a hoaxer. ...snip...
Click to expand...

Those axactly my thoughts, sire.

I would also add the investigator "improving" the material by adding his/hers "interpretations" of the report, myth, whatever, as being factual. Some PGF analysis would fit in this.
 
Joe Beelart said:
All I did was study footprints and the surrounding area. Along the way I made two photos of what is probably damning evidence; a "stomping ground," a place where the molds were put on feet.
Click to expand...

The information about the potential stomping ground should have been made available right at the start. It's hard to sympathize with the researchers when it sounds like they had hard evidence of a hoax all along. They disparage the hoaxer as a publicity seeker, but they have no one to fault but themselves for any publicity that was generated. It was all of their own doing. They could have said, "it's a fake, move right along, nothing to see here", but they went ahead and publicized it.
 
Do I understand the basic argument correctly that is being proffered?

"Since all bigfoot evidence is a hoax, therefore it is acceptable to hoax bigfoot evidence."

Perhaps I misunderstood the overall point being made by most members here. I'm in the camp that says hoaxing is fundamentally wrong in any way, shape, or form.
 
Do you think it was wrong for Roger Patterson to hoax the Patty?
Do you think it was wrong for Ivan Marx to hoax the Cripplefoots?

It seems like it is only wrong, if the hoaxer isn't part of Bigfootry.
 
SuperFly said:
Do I understand the basic argument correctly that is being proffered?

"Since all bigfoot evidence is a hoax, therefore it is acceptable to hoax bigfoot evidence."

Perhaps I misunderstood the overall point being made by most members here. I'm in the camp that says hoaxing is fundamentally wrong in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...


No, I think most of the sentiment here directed at your point is: Prove one of them isn't a hoax if you want us to accept it as something else. Many have been proven as hoaxes. None have been authenticated.

Hoaxing is what keeps the bigfoot legend alive. Without it, there would be nothing. Would you prefer bigfooting go away?
 
SuperFly said:
Perhaps I misunderstood the overall point being made by most members here. I'm in the camp that says hoaxing is fundamentally wrong in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

It depends on the motivation of the hoaxer. Is it meant as a prank? That's not so bad, unless there's trespassing and/or damage to private property. Is it hoaxing for profit? That's clearly wrong.

In this case it sounds like the hoaxer concealed their identity or passed themselves off as someone they were not. That's not cool, I don't support that.

As far as any money spent by the researchers to investigate or loss of credibility, that comes with the territory. If you choose to be a Bigfoot investigator, you're accepting up front that ANYTHING you investigate is very possibly a hoax. It's a hoaxy field. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch about it you need to find a new hobby where deceit doesn't run rampant.
 
SuperFly said:
Do I understand the basic argument correctly that is being proffered?

"Since all bigfoot evidence is a hoax, therefore it is acceptable to hoax bigfoot evidence."

Perhaps I misunderstood the overall point being made by most members here. I'm in the camp that says hoaxing is fundamentally wrong in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Charging people to take them out in the woods and look for bigfoot is hoaxing them, imo. At least most hoaxers don't take money from the targets.

Sending people into the woods to make noises and throw things is hoaxing.

These things are hoaxes just as much as anything else.

And we can add to the list if you want, as you well know.

For example, the Skookum cast is a hoax, imo. The idea that it is an impression of bigfoot is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated to keep bigfoot alive, imo.
 
Last edited:
Kilaak Kommander said:
SuperFly said:
Perhaps I misunderstood the overall point being made by most members here. I'm in the camp that says hoaxing is fundamentally wrong in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

It depends on the motivation of the hoaxer. Is it meant as a prank? That's not so bad, unless there's trespassing and/or damage to private property. Is it hoaxing for profit? That's clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I would say that mens reaWP is a major factor in deciding whether a hoax is "wrong". An innocent hoax done just for fun is both innocent and fun. A deliberate hoax done to expose a lack of critical thinking amongst the credulous is an outright good thing! But a hoax done to exploit the credulous and mislead them is a bad thing, especially if it's done to defraud them out of their hard-earned money.

But, no, I absolutely do not agree that "hoaxing is fundamentally wrong", any more than forcing a card is fundamentally wrong. Hoaxing is a tool, and like many tools, it can be used for good or evil, just as the card shark can use his skills to entertain kiddies, or to cheat at poker.

Of course, if you are one of the credulous fools whose lack of critical thinking is being exposed by a hoax, then it's easy to shout that hoaxes are all wrong. Easier than admitting that you're a credulous fool, fer sure. But that doesn't make you right, or any less of a credulous fool! :D
 
Last edited:
Sep 21 - Paul Graves, Cliff Barackman, and Derek Randles “all agree” that the tracks are real.

Sep 29th - Cliff Barackman blogs that when he first viewed the photos of the footprints he "had some deep reservations about the footprints' authenticity", and that "Many red flags were raised...". Visiting the site didn't help because "a few more red flags were raised." "I had several nagging doubts that I just couldn't let go of."

Told ya hindsight was 20/20.

Say... where did Muldur disappear to?

RayG
 
LTC8K6 said:
Charging people to take them out in the woods and look for bigfoot is hoaxing them, imo.
Click to expand...

You got it right.

That is one of the reasons i started to look hard into things when i got the chance, and at the folks that were associated with the BFRO at anytime. Sure didn't take long to figure out what this was all about.

Tim :)
 
One wonders if the Elbe Trackway would have been openly judged a hoax by participating Bigfooters if they did not think the track was planted for the single purpose to discredit their Bigfootery or/and, eventually, Finding Bigfoot?

Did the hoaxer leave a "stomping ground" and leave human bare feet tracks among the Bigfoot tracks benevolently, for the purpose of showing how easy it is to fake tracks? Or, less kindly, to show how blind Bigfooters can be when looking at "evidence?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom