Campsite Destroyed

[roguefooter]

1. Garrett is a BF researcher, why would he try a hoax when the BF field is highly scrutinized by skeptics and proponents alike? The fraud will eventually be uncovered so what little "gain" he had will be lost and then some.

 

First off you're assuming that he's a real Bigfoot researcher. Maybe he was at one time but some people just get bored and decide to have fun with it. It's happened before. Some people do it because they like the attention, and it's obvious that this is giving him lots of attention.

 

It's common knowledge that there are a lot of believers out there that will give lots of attention without ever asking for evidence. He can keep this going for a long time. Rick Dyer loved the attention, and what did he get out of it all? He has his own Wiki page now and he's part of the Bigfoot lore.

 

 

2. Why didn't Garrett follow up and leave a paper trail? I deal with the Federal government and I leave as huge a paper trail as possible, including communicating with them via certified letters and writing follow-up letters to telephone conversations (also sent certified mail) and cc-ing all letters to the Assistant Secretaries and the Secretary of the Department themselves. If Garrett is naive enough to believe the government is our friend and only there to help us citizen-taxpayers and do what's right for us, then he's big idiot who got what he deserves. The government does what's in its best interest and if the citizen-taxpayers benefit fine, if not, too bad.

 

 

Well if it's a hoax then what paper trail is he going to have? None. Just like he has.

 

 

3. If the government is harassing him, why over  Big Foot? I can totally see them putting Garrett under surveillance if they thought he was a drug trafficker or a human trafficker---he is in Texas after all nearer to the Mexican border than if he were in Minnesota.

 

 

Then again the government may not be harassing him at all because it's just a hoax. To keep people hooked you need to have an interesting story. Scandals and conspiracies are always fun and exciting. This is why evidence is important, unless you just like to get strung along.

 

What I find interesting is this "you're either with us or against us" attitude here. That doesn't encourage discussion: that encourages quarrelling.

 

 

I would say the majority of that argument is based on evidence- as in, why aren't you asking for evidence? To take stories at face value seems very naïve in a field where hoaxes are common and easy to pull off. 

[Bodhi]

First off you're assuming that he's a real Bigfoot researcher. Maybe he was at one time but some people just get bored and decide to have fun with it. It's happened before. Some people do it because they like the attention, and it's obvious that this is giving him lots of attention.

 

It's common knowledge that there are a lot of believers out there that will give lots of attention without ever asking for evidence. He can keep this going for a long time. Rick Dyer loved the attention, and what did he get out of it all? He has his own Wiki page now and he's part of the Bigfoot lore.

 

 

 

Well if it's a hoax then what paper trail is he going to have? None. Just like he has.

 

 

 

Then again the government may not be harassing him at all because it's just a hoax. To keep people hooked you need to have an interesting story. Scandals and conspiracies are always fun and exciting. This is why evidence is important, unless you just like to get strung along.

 

 

I would say the majority of that argument is based on evidence- as in, why aren't you asking for evidence? To take stories at face value seems very naïve in a field where hoaxes are common and easy to pull off. 

Excellent!! I am, yet again, out of positive votes but this is such a cogent post, WELL DONE sir!!

[Guest Crowlogic]

I think Garrett found a "torn up camp" and I think Garrett believes a Big Foot did it. But that's all. Lots of stuff doesn't make sense to me with this, including but not limited to

 

1. Garrett is a BF researcher, why would he try a hoax when the BF field is highly scrutinized by skeptics and proponents alike? The fraud will eventually be uncovered so what little "gain" he had will be lost and then some.

2. Why didn't Garrett follow up and leave a paper trail? I deal with the Federal government and I leave as huge a paper trail as possible, including communicating with them via certified letters and writing follow-up letters to telephone conversations (also sent certified mail) and cc-ing all letters to the Assistant Secretaries and the Secretary of the Department themselves. If Garrett is naive enough to believe the government is our friend and only there to help us citizen-taxpayers and do what's right for us, then he's big idiot who got what he deserves. The government does what's in its best interest and if the citizen-taxpayers benefit fine, if not, too bad.

3. If the government is harassing him, why over  Big Foot? I can totally see them putting Garrett under surveillance if they thought he was a drug trafficker or a human trafficker---he is in Texas after all nearer to the Mexican border than if he were in Minnesota.

 

What I find interesting is this "you're either with us or against us" attitude here. That doesn't encourage discussion: that encourages quarrelling.

Your argument fell flat on it's face when you said    "Garrett is a BF researcher, why would he try a hoax when the BF field is highly scrutinized by skeptics and proponents alike?"  

[Guest]

I have been following BF research since the 70's and have never heard of Bob Garrett until a few days ago reading this forum.  Not that I or my armchair analysis is anything special but at first glance his work seems sloppy and the work of his sons is even worse (basically, irrelevant).   I don't buy into government conspiracies involving BF and this fellow offers nothing credible to make his case.

 

I have yet to listen to the SC podcasts but I do intend to research further so my opinion may change in a few days.  My gut tells me he may very well have valid experiences but he is just not a very good communicator.  God Bless Texas but that does not translate to good research.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

First off you're assuming that he's a real Bigfoot researcher. Maybe he was at one time but some people just get bored and decide to have fun with it. It's happened before. Some people do it because they like the attention, and it's obvious that this is giving him lots of attention.

 

Define a "real Big Foot researcher". In other words, what are the criteria to be a "real" Big Foot researcher as opposed to a fake Big foot researcher. I'm not aware of any professional regulatory boards that issue Big Foot researcher licenses/certifications or administer proficiency examinations or continuing Big Foot education courses. Quite frankly, this lack of certification calls the legitimacy of everyone who researches Big Foot into question, imo.

 

It's common knowledge that there are a lot of believers out there that will give lots of attention without ever asking for evidence. He can keep this going for a long time. Rick Dyer loved the attention, and what did he get out of it all? He has his own Wiki page now and he's part of the Bigfoot lore.

 

And it's common knowledge that there are a lot of believers out there that WILL ask for evidence, so the chances of him getting away with it is decreased. Rick Dyer is part of Big Foot lore...... as a hoaxer. I didn't realize that having your own wiki entry is a mark of success.  If that's the case, then Crabby Appleton should be inducted into the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame.

 

 

Well if it's a hoax then what paper trail is he going to have? None. Just like he has.

 

Well, if it's not a hoax and he didn't leave a paper trail he would have nothing. As I've stated in this thread in the past, Garrett's big mistake was not documenting the events.

 

But I have to ask, how many people would think to leave a paper trail? How many people would think to call 911 again if the cops don't arrive at a location? How many people would ask for 911 call records to back up that they did call? How many people know that some jurisdictions purge 911 call records after a period of time? How many people get the name and badge number of cops? How many people get the name of secretaries or other officials with whom one has left a message or spoken to? How many people document  the date,time and conversations they've had with public officials/employees? How many people write follow up letters, cc them to the higher ups, and send them via certified mail?  The only reason why I document and CYA to the extent I do is because I deal with the Feds and state and I've had those people lie that they never received a letter or application or payment, even though I have the cancelled check/ the credit card statement and the certified letter receipt.

 

Then again the government may not be harassing him at all because it's just a hoax. To keep people hooked you need to have an interesting story. Scandals and conspiracies are always fun and exciting. This is why evidence is important, unless you just like to get strung along.

 

That's a possibility too.

 

I would say the majority of that argument is based on evidence- as in, why aren't you asking for evidence? To take stories at face value seems very naïve in a field where hoaxes are common and easy to pull off. 

 

 

If as you say, hoaxes are common and easy to pull off, then it is also common these hoaxers are exposed. Again, why would anyone want to pull a hoax in a field where these common hoaxes will be exposed? Of course, the simplistic answer would be to get a wiki entry and notoriety.

 

Anyhow, I base my comment on what I've seen here.  There are 2 extremists groups: proponents and opponents. And everyone is categorized as being "us or them". No tolerance for the opposing view and definitely no tolerance for a middle ground. That extremism and intolerance results in quarreling, not discussion and not debate. And that does not result in good research nor good science.

Edited July 23, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest Divergent1]

There might not be a regulatory body for bigfoot research but there are standards for research in general that should be followed if you want you work regognized as valid. Since Garrett has a podcast and promotes himself as a researcher I'm assuming he is doing this because he wants his work recognized in SOME FORM OR FASHION. If he doesn't follow standard protocols for research then it's easy to guess what the motivation is for his involvement in the bigfoot community. The work speaks for itself. If Garrett is in anyway familiar with standard research protocols then he should know to leave a paper trail. That is simply a matter of common sense or, as I said above, the motivation isn't genuine research. .

Edited July 23, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

There might not be a regulatory body for bigfoot research but there are standards for research in general that should be followed if you want you work regognized as valid.

 

I've read BigTreeWalker's study on bones. It appears to follow the "standards" for observational studies. Therefore according to the criterion you use, it should be published by  American Journal of Primatology or Science or Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, ans Systematics. Likewise,  if the criterion for a work to be recognized as valid is that it has to follow the standards, then these journals would be crammed, jammed with studies that oppose the "consensus".

 

Since Garrett has a podcast and promotes himself as a researcher I'm assuming he is doing this because he wants his work recognized in SOME FORM OR FASHION.

 

So if anyone shares their information with others, they are doing it for personal gain and not for the advancement of the field. This is an interesting idea because if the people sharing their work are already suspected of duplicity or a potential for duplicity, then there is no motivation for sharing information and the BF research field will remain stagnant.

 

If he doesn't follow standard protocols for research then it's easy to guess what the motivation is for his involvement in the bigfoot community

I don't know if Garrett follows any research protocol, because I don't know if he's written any papers,  do you? So I can't give an informed opinion on that.

 

The work speaks for itself. Typically work does speak for itself. The videos I watched on Garrett's defunk  youtube site consisted mainly of trail cams videos, which is similar to what other researchers do. Besides, since there is no professional regulatory organization in the BF world, there are no specific BF research protocols (kill or no-kill is a contentious topic in the BF research world isn't it?) and it's more or less a free-for-all until standards for this field are developed and adopted.

 

 If Garrett is in anyway familiar with standard research protocols then he should know to leave a paper trail.  I don't know of any "standard research protocols" that state to leave a paper trail when dealing with the government. I do it at work because there  government workers who are  lying SOBs and so we need to CYA.

 

That is simply a matter of common sense or, as I said above, the motivation isn't genuine research. . Using your criteria genuine research is only done by people who do not share their information or work, because sharing that information means one's motivation is personal gain. But that's why the field is stagnant because no information is being shared. BTW, don't use common sense as the basis for an argument, unless you want  Bodhi telling you that the appeal to common sense is a logic fallacy.

Edited July 23, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest Divergent1]

Simply following research protocols doesn't guarantee recognition or being published. You should know that, but on the off chance that you don't, then consider yourself educated.  If someone doesn't follow standard protocols for research they might be lucky if anyone bothers to read the research much less give it any credence whatsoever. 

 

As you well know there are a multitude of reasons why someone might share their research results. Those motivations becomes evident when that research isn't done in a consistent manner or is "sloppy".

 

If you can't advance an informed opinion then perhaps you should exit the conversation. To my knowledge he has no documentation for any of his results or methods other than some dubious blurry videos. Anyone feel free to link me to any source that proves me wrong on that .

 

As I have said previously in regard to Garret's work, using the excuse that there are no regulatory standards for bigfoot research doesn't justify hear say. That's pretty much all you have of Garrett's work.

 

If you work with the government then you should know that if you didn't document it, it didn't happen. The same applies to science. Why would I need to explain this to you unless of course your argument is weak.

 

My "criteria" says nothing of the kind. I'm simply saying real research is documented using standard research protocols that apply to every field of scientific endeavor.

[roguefooter]

ChasingRabbits, on 23 Jul 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

 

Define a "real Big Foot researcher". In other words, what are the criteria to be a "real" Big Foot researcher as opposed to a fake Big foot researcher. I'm not aware of any professional regulatory boards that issue Big Foot researcher licenses/certifications or administer proficiency examinations or continuing Big Foot education courses. Quite frankly, this lack of certification calls the legitimacy of everyone who researches Big Foot into question, imo.

 

 

A real Bigfoot researcher, as in someone who is really doing research and serious about it. As opposed to a fake researcher- someone acting as one for a hoax, as Rick Dyer did.

 

That's it.

 

And it's common knowledge that there are a lot of believers out there that WILL ask for evidence, so the chances of him getting away with it is decreased.

 

 

You only need to look at this thread to see there are far too few asking for evidence. If any believer did ask for evidence then they were long ago drowned out by the regulars constantly pushing Garrett as a legit person without question.

 

Rick Dyer is part of Big Foot lore...... as a hoaxer. I didn't realize that having your own wiki entry is a mark of success.  If that's the case, then Crabby Appleton should be inducted into the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame.

 

 

For a person craving attention like Dyer, a WIki page is success. Do you really think he cares if it's for hoaxing? The guy thinks it's funny, as do most other hoaxers. They think the whole field is a joke.

 

Even a hoaxer gains an amount of celebrity status in Bigfoot lore. Just look at Ray Wallace- the guy has been interviewed in magazines, newspapers, put out record albums, etc.

 

But I have to ask, how many people would think to leave a paper trail? How many people would think to call 911 again if the cops don't arrive at a location? How many people would ask for 911 call records to back up that they did call? How many people know that some jurisdictions purge 911 call records after a period of time? How many people get the name and badge number of cops? How many people get the name of secretaries or other officials with whom one has left a message or spoken to? How many people document  the date,time and conversations they've had with public officials/employees? How many people write follow up letters, cc them to the higher ups, and send them via certified mail?  The only reason why I document and CYA to the extent I do is because I deal with the Feds and state and I've had those people lie that they never received a letter or application or payment, even though I have the cancelled check/ the credit card statement and the certified letter receipt.

 

 

You don't have to think about it- the paper trail is usually automatic. 911 calls are recorded and logged, same with police reports, same with phone records, etc. All you have to do is retrieve it. When the excuses start to fly about why they can't be retrieved, then that's when the red flags go up.

 

If as you say, hoaxes are common and easy to pull off, then it is also common these hoaxers are exposed. Again, why would anyone want to pull a hoax in a field where these common hoaxes will be exposed? Of course, the simplistic answer would be to get a wiki entry and notoriety.

 

 

No it's not common for hoaxes to be exposed because the hoaxer plans it that way. They usually give vague information, incredible stories without references, reasons why nobody can check up on things. Then they create trust in the community to protect them- people that will believe their stories and excuses, and defend them to no end.

 

Even in cases that most people would consider to be a hoax, there are those here that will push the lack of "definitive proof" just so they can't be classified that way.

Edited July 24, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest diana swampbooger]

CR, I was looking at National Geographic Education.... Citizen Scientist. 

 

Citizen Scientist...youtube everything or at least, photos...measurements, catalog, journal thoughts, impressions, collect specimens...all of it.

 

For instance, a couple of people have started to collect data points as regards to encounters - phases of the moon & cloud cover. It turns out most sighting are at the waxing & waning moon & cloud cover. New & full moon - significant decrease in encounters. Kind of makes you wonder about their eyesight or something!! 

[Guest SoFla]

I have been following BF research since the 70's and have never heard of Bob Garrett until a few days ago reading this forum.  Not that I or my armchair analysis is anything special but at first glance his work seems sloppy and the work of his sons is even worse (basically, irrelevant).   I don't buy into government conspiracies involving BF and this fellow offers nothing credible to make his case.

 

I have yet to listen to the SC podcasts but I do intend to research further so my opinion may change in a few days.  My gut tells me he may very well have valid experiences but he is just not a very good communicator.  God Bless Texas but that does not translate to good research.

This is the perfect example of a post that makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever.  No offense or anything and I'm not calling you an idiot or a person who is prejudiced. BUT... You said you hadn't even heard of him until just a few days ago and have as yet to look into his case, yet you have decided, sight unseen that "his work seems sloppy, and even worse; irrelevant". How can you make an assessment like that if you haven't even looked into the work that he and his sons have done?

 

Also, comes this gem: "I don't buy into government conspiracies involving BF and this fellow offers nothing credible to make his case." did you even know about his website and youtube account being shut down as well as his access to any internet AT ALL was messed with-he couldn't even get online. His personal files were destroyed-the government hacked into his computer and took pictures and files-what do you call that?

 

Oh that's right, you just need to go by what "your gut" tells you, and even though you have yet to listen to any of his interviews you have come to the conclusion that "he is just not a very good communicator"

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Simply following research protocols doesn't guarantee recognition or being published. You should know that, but on the off chance that you don't, then consider yourself educated.  If someone doesn't follow standard protocols for research they might be lucky if anyone bothers to read the research much less give it any credence whatsoever. 

 

I'm very well aware that following research standards does not guarantee publication nor does it guarantee that a work is recognized as valid, that's why I don't use it as a criterion. Bias occurs even among scientists---that's one of the reasons for 'double-blinded", "placebo-controlled" studies.

 

As you well know there are a multitude of reasons why someone might share their research results. Those motivations becomes evident when that research isn't done in a consistent manner or is "sloppy".

 

I am well aware that there are many reasons why someone would share their research. That's why I don't automatically assume that motivation is "because he wants his work recognized in SOME FORM OR FASHION."

 

If you can't advance an informed opinion then perhaps you should exit the conversation. To my knowledge he has no documentation for any of his results or methods other than some dubious blurry videos. Anyone feel free to link me to any source that proves me wrong on that .

 

Unlike you, I do not have all the answers that is why I ask questions. I did not realize that this forum was only for all-knowing, all-seeing creatures. Mea culpa maxima. But again, here is no regulatory body that sets standards for Big Foot research, so it's impossible to conclude what is and isn't "standard" in the Big Foot research field. Feel free to provide me with any "industry standards" because I would be most interested in reading them.

 

As I have said previously in regard to Garret's work, using the excuse that there are no regulatory standards for bigfoot research doesn't justify hear say. That's pretty much all you have of Garrett's work.

 

Hearsay is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "Testimony about out of court statements that are involving someone other than the person that is testifying. It is inadmissible because it cannot be cross examined. Civil court will use it as first hand hearsay."

 

Therefore, by definition, Garrett is not committing hearsay if he is relating his own experience.

 

If you work with the government then you should know that if you didn't document it, it didn't happen. The same applies to science. Why would I need to explain this to you unless of course your argument is weak.

 

The "if it isn't documented it didn't happen" idea is a legal one, not a scientific one. The sun rising in the morning happens even if it isn't written down "sun rose this morning".

 

My "criteria" says nothing of the kind. I'm simply saying real research is documented using standard research protocols that apply to every field of scientific endeavor.

 

Standard research protocols differ with each field of scientific endeavor. For example the "standard" in medical sciences is the  double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. But that standard does not apply in chemistry or physics because no study in those fields can be double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled.

 

So please share with me what "standard research protocols" Big Foot researchers follow.

 

Edited July 24, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest]

SoFla, how does someone lose the ability to "get online"? That's just stupid IMHO. Not meaning you, but the claim. Several things you listed are unsubstantiated claims with zero corroboration. That's the crux of this thread. Claims by themselves are left to faith in the person making the claims. No one knows if the YouTube accounts were shutdown by anyone. That's a claim. Maybe a screenshot of a page denying access would've helped a little. We don't even have something as simple as that.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

A real Bigfoot researcher, as in someone who is really doing research and serious about it. As opposed to a fake researcher- someone acting as one for a hoax, as Rick Dyer did.

 

That's it.

 

What are the criteria to determine if someone is "really doing research and serious about it"? Is there a questionnaire or check list available on line? If so where is it located?

 

You only need to look at this thread to see there are far too few asking for evidence. If any believer did ask for evidence then they were long ago drowned out by the regulars constantly pushing Garrett as a legit person without question.

 

So now the categories have been further broken down from "us vs. them" to "believers v. regulars".

 

For a person craving attention like Dyer, a WIki page is success. Do you really think he cares if it's for hoaxing? The guy thinks it's funny, as do most other hoaxers. They think the whole field is a joke.

 

Dyer is the poster-boy for hoaxs and frauds. But to project Dyer onto everyone else is illogical. It's like assuming that every cancer doctor in the US is like Farid Fata because Fata is a fraud. And if that is the prevailing assumption in the Big Foot field that everyone is a fraud until proven otherwise, that kind of scrutiny would deter anyone from engaging in fraud or sharing legitimate work.

 

Even a hoaxer gains an amount of celebrity status in Bigfoot lore. Just look at Ray Wallace- the guy has been interviewed in magazines, newspapers, put out record albums, etc.

 

That's a societal problem: society has failed to distinguish between notoriety and fame.

 

You don't have to think about it- the paper trail is usually automatic. 911 calls are recorded and logged, same with police reports, same with phone records, etc. All you have to do is retrieve it. When the excuses start to fly about why they can't be retrieved, then that's when the red flags go up.

 

The problem is some jurisdictions automatically purge records. On post # 1336, I found that the City of Houston purges their 911 call records after  6 months. I couldn't find what the policy is for Hardin county, the location of Sam Houston National Forest and the torn up camp. But until that policy is found, no one can say for certain if the tapes were automatically purged after a period of time (like Houston) or if they existed at all. And with that amount of uncertainty, I don't think the inability to produce those tapes 2 years after the event can be used as a validity criterion.

 

No it's not common for hoaxes to be exposed because the hoaxer plans it that way. They usually give vague information, incredible stories without references, reasons why nobody can check up on things. Then they create trust in the community to protect them- people that will believe their stories and excuses, and defend them to no end.

 

The only way to determine that "hoaxes are common" is if they also commonly exposed. So your statement above directly contradicts what you wrote here " To take stories at face value seems very naïve in a field where hoaxes are common and easy to pull off. "  Either hoaxes are common (because they are commonly exposed) or they are not common (because they are not commonly exposed).

 

Even in cases that most people would consider to be a hoax, there are those here that will push the lack of "definitive proof" just so they can't be classified that way.

 

The "lack of definitive proof" can disqualify something as a hoax and can disqualify something as a fact. Therefore, definitive proof (presence of or lack of) is a better way to determine the something than knee-jerk reactions that something is a hoax or something is true due to personal biases, beliefs, and "considerations".

 

 

[Guest SoFla]

SoFla, how does someone lose the ability to "get online"? That's just stupid IMHO. Not meaning you, but the claim. Several things you listed are unsubstantiated claims with zero corroboration. That's the crux of this thread. Claims by themselves are left to faith in the person making the claims. No one knows if the YouTube accounts were shutdown by anyone. That's a claim. Maybe a screenshot of a page denying access would've helped a little. We don't even have something as simple as that.

Oh come on man, get real will you please, you need a screen shot to corroborate someone's claim that their internet access was closed down. What should we do now...OK I got it! We'll go back in time and transport ourselves over to Bob Garrett's house in rural Texas and take some pictures so you can have the evidence that YOU will be demanding on BFF next year, just "something as simple as that!" So I guess the fact that everyone in the Bigfoot community WHO KNEW ABOUT BOB'S SITUATION also knew that his YouTube channel had been hacked and taken down, but just because the all-important poster known as Johnny G over on BFF was not aware of a situation that he doesn't believe anyway-well none of this happened. Once more; and I say this with love in my heart JG: GET REAL.