Campsite Destroyed

[Bodhi]

 

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".

 

 

 

I'm curious why you are so insistent on defending B.G.'s claims? You acknowledge that there's no papertrail and no corroboration.

Other than your own personal incredulity that a researcher would hoax, which flies in the face of the history of researchers who've done just that - one need look no further than Standing for an example.

I get that it's just your opinion but you seem so personally invested that I wonder why you've hitched your wagon to such a sketchy story.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I'm curious why you are so insistent on defending B.G.'s claims? You acknowledge that there's no papertrail and no corroboration.

Other than your own personal incredulity that a researcher would hoax, which flies in the face of the history of researchers who've done just that - one need look no further than Standing for an example.

I get that it's just your opinion but you seem so personally invested that I wonder why you've hitched your wagon to such a sketchy story.

 

I was waiting for someone to make that claim. Thank for doing it, Bodhi. But if you bring my "personal incredulity" into question, you should bring the "personal credulity of people who cite "standards" without producing them, of the people who use logic fallacy such as appeal to common sense, false analogy,  and so forth.

 

There are 2 groups of people here who are personally invested in the Bob Garrett case: the ones who want to prove his is a hoaxer and the ones who want to prove his is not. 

 

As I have written, I think Garrett believes a Big Foot destroyed the camp. But there are aspects of this that do not make sense to me. Some people accept simplistic, knee-jerk  explanations like Garrett is a hoaxer, no doctor or nurse or EMT corroborated the story, everyone in the Big Foot field is a media *****: that's how they live their lives and more power to them. But I don't live by the knee-jerk reaction mentality. 

Edited July 24, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Bodhi]

I was waiting for someone to make that claim. Thank for doing it, Bodhi. But if you bring my "personal incredulity" into question, you should bring the "personal credulity of people who cite "standards" without producing them, of the people who use logic fallacy such as appeal to common sense, false analogy,  and so forth.

 

There are 2 groups of people here who are personally invested in the Bob Garrett case: the ones who want to prove his is a hoaxer and the ones who want to prove his is not. 

 

As I have written, I think Garrett believes a Big Foot destroyed the camp. But there are aspects of this that do not make sense to me. Some people accept simplistic, knee-jerk  explanations like Garrett is a hoaxer, no doctor or nurse or EMT corroborated the story, everyone in the Big Foot field is a media *****: that's how they live their lives and more power to them. But I don't live by the knee-jerk reaction mentality. 

Is it only this story or are there others you find compelling? In particular, Standing's claims; do you find any of those at all compelling?

 

Why do you think that B.G. believes a sasquatch destroyed the camp? Is it the videos or his interviews which have made you such a strong adherent?

[Guest]

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.

What I would like to see is something, anything. The story of someone's internet being "taken away" is absurd. For one, it happens when your PC craps out. You are taking one persons word that this happened. Period.

As for the BF world knowing "all of these things happened", someone may know the YouTube channel is unavailable, but that person would have no clue why. Can the owner of the channel not alter their videos?

I am neither a believer or a non believer of the story. I don't buy the cover up, but could definitely believe Sasquatch could hurt someone. My position is that if you make amazing claims, expect people to ask questions. If you have taken zero actions to corroborate your claim, then expect doubts. When logic dictates parts of the story are questionable at best, a normal person would at least try a little documentation.

 I am interested in the subject and really enjoy listening to BG on SC. But with so many opportunities to gather and show something, anything, I can't only be suspect when zero corroboration is available.

My mind is truly blown by the cult like trust placed in one man's word around here. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to except extraordinary claims from me without a shred of corroboration. Notice, I use that term instead of proof. This isn't court. I don't expect proof. But, Id like a little something. I'm being told to "get real" just because I don't have blind faith in his claim? That's bizarre and sad.

I came open minded. Personal experience tells me some of the claims were extremely unlikely, but I was undecided on the bulk. If being curious about the story and claims means I am a non believer, then there is a problem. I thought this was a discussion board.

Edited July 25, 2015 by chelefoot

[Bodhi]

What I would like to see is something, anything. The story of someone's internet being "taken away" is absurd. For one, it happens when your PC craps out. You are taking one persons word that this happened. Period.

As for the BF world knowing "all of these things happened", someone may know the YouTube channel is unavailable, but that person would have no clue why. Can the owner of the channel not alter their videos?

I am neither a believer or a non believer of the story. I don't buy the cover up, but could definitely believe Sasquatch could hurt someone. My position is that if you make amazing claims, expect people to ask questions. If you have taken zero actions to corroborate your claim, then expect doubts. When logic dictates parts of the story are questionable at best, a normal person would at least try a little documentation.

I have an open mind, but I am not a fool. Neither do I worship at the shrine of a particular researcher. I am interested in the subject and really enjoy listening to BG on SC. But with so many opportunities to gather and show something, anything, I can't only be suspect when zero corroboration is available.

My mind is truly blown by the cult like trust placed in one man's word around here. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to except extraordinary claims from me without a shred of corroboration. Notice, I use that term instead of proof. This isn't court. I don't expect proof. But, Id like a little something. I'm being told to "get real" just because I don't have blind faith in his claim? That's bizarre and sad.

For Bigfoot believers, this forum has some of the most closed minded people I've seen. They see things no one else can see and believe something is fact just because it has been repeated by someone they like. Yet, they staunchly rebuke with religious zeal anyone who dares to question even the most hard to believe claims.

I came open minded. Personal experience tells me some of the claims were extremely unlikely, but I was undecided on the bulk. If being curious about the story and claims means I am a heretical infidel, then there is a problem among the followers. I thought this was a discussion board.

^^^PLUS PLUS PLUS

[Guest diana swampbooger]

JG, if you want conversation, go talk to Garrett yourself.

 

Here's his website:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmLRooPwyU6prBbsxbtTx3Q

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Is it only this story or are there others you find compelling? In particular, Standing's claims; do you find any of those at all compelling?

 

I find many stories "compelling" because my interest in BigFoot is primarily from the folklore angle. 

 

Why do you think that B.G. believes a sasquatch destroyed the camp? Is it the videos or his interviews which have made you such a strong adherent?

 

I think that Garrett believes BigFoot destroyed the camp because Garrett said that was his belief in one of his interviews.  I don't have ESP, so I don't know Garrett's beliefs and thoughts until he verbalizes them or writes them out. Obviously there are remote mind readers here who can read Garrett's mind and know exactly what his thoughts and beliefs are and that's good.  Anyhow, I don't understand how my lack of the ESP gift makes me an "adherent".  

 

 

[Bodhi]

 

Is it only this story or are there others you find compelling? In particular, Standing's claims; do you find any of those at all compelling?

 

I find many stories "compelling" because my interest in BigFoot is primarily from the folklore angle. 

 

Why do you think that B.G. believes a sasquatch destroyed the camp? Is it the videos or his interviews which have made you such a strong adherent?

 

I think that Garrett believes BigFoot destroyed the camp because Garrett said that was his belief in one of his interviews.  I don't have ESP, so I don't know Garrett's beliefs and thoughts until he verbalizes them or writes them out. Obviously there are remote mind readers here who can read Garrett's mind and know exactly what his thoughts and beliefs are and that's good.  Anyhow, I don't understand how my lack of the ESP gift makes me an "adherent".  

 

 

 

I use adherent for the following reasons:

• There is no evidence for any sort of attack shown in the B.G. videos (a messed up camp can have many sources).
• There is no evidence of a sasquatch (hair,blood,teeth,scat, footprint).
• There is no record of a 911 call being made.
• There are no police reports of missing persons.
• There are no records of deaths.
• No family members reported missing or dead family members.

B.G. made fantastic claims which one would have expected to have been corroborated by at least one other source (911 records, park service,police, sheriff, rangers,family of the missing/dead) also one would have expected an attack to have caused at least a single hair to be shed from a sasquatch or at least one footprint to be left.

In the absence of corroboration of any sort from any quarter and the lack of any tangible trace evidence you take B.G. at his word. To me, that is the action of an adherent. 

 

I think it's perfectly fine to believe the guy; I don't find it rational to do so but it is your right to believe whatever you wish. I was just curious as to why you'd take him at his word minus all the things I mentioned above.

 

I understand your point, you believe B.G. because B.G. states that it happened.

 

Is B.G. the only person whose word you would take or do you also take Standing at his word regarding his filmed encounters?

Edited July 24, 2015 by Bodhi

[Guest]

JG, if you want conversation, go talk to Garrett yourself.

Here's his website:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmLRooPwyU6prBbsxbtTx3Q

Well, I've not heard him address any questions raised here. Hard to imagine he would just because I asked. Aren't any of his fans, and I don't mean that term in a bad way, curious about this? Responding to these concerns, which is common sense stuff, would go a long way to bringing folks on board. We all like BF stuff. I just want to believe I'm not being scammed and a total lack of corroboration doesn't help with that.

[Guest SoFla]

JG, if you want conversation, go talk to Garrett yourself.

 

Here's his website:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmLRooPwyU6prBbsxbtTx3Q

Wait a minute Diana, do you expect for us to actually BELIEVE that there is a person who is really named Bob Garrett? Also, ANYBODY and his brother can create a website and "Say" that they themselves are this Bob Garrett guy. How about some proof? How about a blood sample with DNA evidence and while we're at it, we better have his "so-called sons" to give blood, urine as well as semen samples JUST TO BE SURE!. When it comes to anything bigfoot related we can never be too certain so we need every bit of corroborating evidence that we can get.

 

Having said that and even IF you were somehow able to meet all of these outrageous demands, let's face it Diana, you know and I know, and everybody who is snickering behind their palms discussing this amongst themselves know-none of that will matter anyway, nor would it matter if Garrett drove up in his Ford ranger with a smelly rotting corpse of a dead bigfoot sprawled across the hood because BIGFOOT DOES NOT EXIST!

I use adherent for the following reasons:

• There is no evidence for any sort of attack shown in the B.G. videos (a messed up camp can have many sources).
• There is no evidence of a sasquatch (hair,blood,teeth,scat, footprint).
• There is no record of a 911 call being made.
• There are no police reports of missing persons.
• There are no records of deaths.
• No family members reported missing or dead family members.

B.G. made fantastic claims which one would have expected to have been corroborated by at least one other source (911 records, park service,police, sheriff, rangers,family of the missing/dead) also one would have expected an attack to have caused at least a single hair to be shed from a sasquatch or at least one footprint to be left.

In the absence of corroboration of any sort from any quarter and the lack of any tangible trace evidence you take B.G. at his word. To me, that is the action of an adherent. 

 

I think it's perfectly fine to believe the guy; I don't find it rational to do so but it is your right to believe whatever you wish. I was just curious as to why you'd take him at his word minus all the things I mentioned above.

 

I understand your point, you believe B.G. because B.G. states that it happened.

 

Is B.G. the only person whose word you would take or do you also take Standing at his word regarding his filmed encounters?

Oh that again? Don't look here...look over THERE!! No I meant look here-it's a silly game you play, and no matter how professional the above post looks, it is nothing more than educated subterfuge...and...I don't play that game-sorry

Edited July 24, 2015 by SoFla

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Well, I've not heard him address any questions raised here. Hard to imagine he would just because I asked. Aren't any of his fans, and I don't mean that term in a bad way, curious about this? Responding to these concerns, which is common sense stuff, would go a long way to bringing folks on board. We all like BF stuff. I just want to believe I'm not being scammed and a total lack of corroboration doesn't help with that.

 

Watch, read & listen to all his stuff. It's all there.

 

Have you been scammed in the BF world? Did it cost you big bucks? Do you doubt your instincts now?  It's no big whoop 'cause making executive decisions are easily changed with new input & so far, it looks as though you haven't done any 'watch/read/listen'.

[Guest]

There is a Bob Garrett and he is a BF researcher.  I also find it quite likely there are plenty of Sasquatch in east Texas and I imagine some are ill-tempered.  I find his stories entertaining and don't really question much of what he's said.  This particular claim, or massive series of claims, leaves much unanswered.  Many people feel that way, not just me.  

 

Some here are using various illogical arguments to make the most basic questions seem unreasonable.  "Can you corroborate the claim the government has ordered you to shut-up and taken down everything Internet based" is not the same as "prove it all to me right now!"  I've given some extremely basic examples of small things which would build these stories into something resembling credibility.  

Edited July 25, 2015 by WV FOOTER
Edit Text

[Guest]

Watch, read & listen to all his stuff. It's all there.

Have you been scammed in the BF world? Did it cost you big bucks? Do you doubt your instincts now? It's no big whoop 'cause making executive decisions are easily changed with new input & so far, it looks as though you haven't done any 'watch/read/listen'.

If the answers to any of these questions are "there", then please provide some. All we've seen so far has been a meaningless video and various unsubstantiated claims.

No, I've lost no money, but I would rather not waste time listening to a scammer, and I've not said he is one. I haven't said he is. I do not have the time, energy, not desire to follow everything he has done.

Feel free to see bodies, blood, whatever you wish. Feel free to believe whatever BG says. All I've wanted was a serious discussion and hopefully some answers. That hasn't happened and will not here.

I have knowledge gained from decades in my field. That knowledge tells me at least some of the information attributed to this whole story is false. I say that with certainty. I'm pretty sure now the whole thing is false.

[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. 

 

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.

 

No protocols have been used in Garrett's case so I'm not sure why you think he's actually doing anything remotely considered research.

 

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."

 

Why would he have podcasts and a pay per view site if he didn't want his "research" to be made public? I think you've backed yourself in a corner with this discussion that you can't get out of without admitting the asininity of your argument

 

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.

 

There is a difference between not knowing something and willful ignorance. You admit that you have no idea what methods Garrett uses and you don't seem to be too interested in doing your own due diligence. You are also comparing the situation to HIPAA and bigfoot research to  protocols used in pharmacology studies, need I say more?

 

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.

 

Garrettt is relating what the government supposedly did to him and things that they supposedly said to him, it sounds like hearsay to me. It's actually more akin to the big L word we aren't supposed to call people here on the forum. Hearsay was a more politically correct way of putting it.

 

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".

 

The sun is self evident. Garrett's story isn't.

 

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.

 

This is neither here nor there, but you're incorrect about the double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies not being used in chemistry or physics, afterall, pharmacology and pharmacokinetics involve physics and chemistry.

 

A good starting point for a standard research protocol to use with bigfoot research would be the same methods as those used in other wildlife research. I believe BigTreeWalker gave us a good example of that with his own research. Maybe Garrett should take a 'leaf" out of BigTreeWalker's book. I leave it up to you to Google that information for yourself since I can see you've done such an excellent job researching your information before you posted it thus far.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest SoFla]

If the answers to any of these questions are "there", then please provide some. All we've seen so far has been a meaningless video and various unsubstantiated claims.

No, I've lost no money, but I would rather not waste time listening to a scammer, and I've not said he is one. I haven't said he is. I do not have the time, energy, not desire to follow everything he has done.

Feel free to see bodies, blood, whatever you wish. Feel free to believe whatever BG says. All I've wanted was a serious discussion and hopefully some answers. That hasn't happened and will not here.

I have knowledge gained from decades in my field. That knowledge tells me at least some of the information attributed to this whole story is false. I say that with certainty. I'm pretty sure now the whole thing is false.

Do you remember that cult in SanDiego that were following that guy with no testicles and a shaved head? They all ended up drinking Jim Jones' cocktails and expecting to be scooped in their purple Nikes up by the big UFO trailing the Hale-Bop Comet? Well picture Bob as a modern day Marshall Applewhite and we his Heavens Gate followers-it's exactly like that.