roguefooter Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) 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? The criteria is simple- if they're not producing hoaxes then they're serious about their research. The chances are 50/50 real or hoax. That's why all research should be questioned to determine if it's serious, and not just accepting it on faith. So now the categories have been further broken down from "us vs. them" to "believers v. regulars". I never brought "us vs them" into this- you did. You're the one hung up on rivalries. My only objective is seeking truth- I don't care about any 'teams'. I've questioned and argued with people on both sides of the argument. Do these little categorical things really bother you that much? 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. If the medical field had a zero success rate and high scam rate as the Bigfoot field then absolutely it should all be scrutinized. If that scrutiny is a deterrent then that's the way it goes. This is the wrong field for overly sensitive people- just like any other field, not everybody is cut out for it. 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. That's not the problem- the problem is why don't people start asking for these things from the beginning? Then you would have had six months to get the results, or one year, or two years. Hence the big problem with people that just take things off of faith and give excuses later on. The only way to determine that "hoaxes are common" is if they also commonly exposed. No, I disagree. There is a difference between determining a hoax and proving a hoax. The majority of what we call hoaxes have never been absolutely proven, but we have enough information to conclude that they are. To expose a hoax is generally to show proof of the hoax. 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". Of course it's a better way, but this is not a field where definitive proof presents itself very often. That's why I usually don't conclude anything without what I would consider to be sufficient evidence to back my conclusion. Edited July 25, 2015 by roguefooter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 (edited) So why is it that people will accept this stuff on blind faith and then defend it against questioning? I don't understand the motive here. Does questioning a Bigfoot encounter or story somehow jeopardize something? Edited July 25, 2015 by roguefooter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 I don't understand the motive here. Does questioning a Bigfoot encounter or story somehow jeopardize something? Depends on the type of question, don't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 @Rougefooter - It sure seems like a significant amount of this argument comes down to an interesting question: are there points of view that simply are made to derail the thread or are they truly curious and searching for answers? That isn't meant to be a rebuttal of your general point, just a possible explanation for the specific questions in post#1622. At the core the issue of Campsite Destroyed thread is and has always been the fallacy that any man or woman can be master of their own fate and we all would want what is right in our own eyes. The cold hard realization that somebody, anybody Armed with the disproportionate resources that may or may not have at their disposal who can allocate if for no other reason than to simply perpetuate the intrinsic interests they represent, forge efforts to influence the outcome at the expense of the public good should always be viewed skeptically and not discounted accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 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? Chasing, You seemed to drop out of our little dialogue. In case you missed it here was my response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 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" You got me there SoFla, I was not expecting such an intricate web of details from the podcasts to be perfectly honest. More than I bargained for. I did find Mr. Garrett to be an excellent communicator. What threw me off initially was the hodgepodge of non-details coming through the firehose of BF research. There is far too much of it and I try to keep up with a good percentage of it. The shards of reports on Garrett's situation was very unconvincing. Maybe because there was so much conjecture. I had to dig to find Garrett's radio programs but found none of his photos or videos. Can anyone state that his videographic or photographic evidence can stand up to scrutiny? Since I can't see it I will rely on the opinion of others. We already know there is a vast amount of audio evidence. I do not doubt Garrett and his team have been out in the thickets for 20+ years. His skill with tracking is not contestable. Here is where I have a problem with the trail of events: What I don't like is how all of sudden the feds come swooping in and lay the hammer down, hack into is personal computer, shut him down from his normal blog and video channels, make him bad guy #1, hassle his wife, fly helicopters over his property, are able to isolate his remote location within the thickets (implying maybe his vehicle was GPS tracked). We've got creepy dudes with beards saying they are feds hassling small town cops and mayors, we've got a paranoid small town cop openly talking to a podcaster who is doing his very best to be on top of every scrap of detail. Then the creepy feds who are not identifying what part of the government they are with suddenly offer the paranoid cop a job. The creepy dudes have access to all kinds of instant information. Their plates allegedly are traced to Homeland Security. Yet, there is no way to verify any of it except through a podcast. It's all a little much. The kicker for me is Garrett saying he had just captured the ultimate photos in the ultimate setting (daylight, unbeknownst to the BFs who were chasing a pig). Then on their way out of the thicket towards the evening out of nowhere a black SUV rammed them from behind, forcing them over where the feds dump the digital photos. All very convenient. C'mon already. Yet, if this is all a fancy hoax, what I don't get is how precise the audioplay is. It's too complex even for professional audio actors to pull off. Garrett sounds very sincere. He sounds like a man legitimately angry the feds have hacked his personal computer, hassled his family, shut down his radio show and all of his material evidence on the internet. I do not see how it is possible all of the players here are voice actors and can fudge their way through hours of re-telling of events. Something serious happened at the campsite, we know that. Is that the secret that was worth this level of response by an unnamed government agency? They do seem to carry serious clout. I don't think it is just the camp site at issue. There's got to be something else that was in Garrett's possession. I do know from research into other esoteric areas, the U.S. government does have expert teams that do in fact hack into people's personal computers but they don't do it on a lark. They do it when they know there is something to be found. That could be the case here. In fact, what else could it be. Garrett was sloppy technically but by his own admission he is not technically astute. So we can forgive him for allowing the feds or their paid contractors the ease with which they took him down, if in fact that is who is responsible. A great movie script if they can figure out what the real motive of the antagonists is. I do no think protecting BF secrets is at the core of the problem. Maybe Mr. Garrett has other secrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Wingman, that "cop" feeding SC info is positively full of BS. I'm sure "Mr. Black" is as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Depends on the type of question, don't it. Well what kind of questions do you see harmful, and in what way? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 The criticism as displayed in this thread is exactly the reason that Garrett gives (at the end of his last Sasquatch Chronicles interview) as to why he and his people don't feel the need to release anything (as far as pictures, videos, audio etc.) to the general public. Frankly, they don't feel they have to prove or justify anything they have or that they have done to likes of you and your minions here Wingman to then just have it all be so flippantly disregarded. I don't know but I suppose that being called a liar and a hoaxer and every other word that is being used here to describe him and his family and friends makes a person feel as though they simply doesn't need to prove anything to anyone who feels AND TALKS that way about them, or who questions their character in that way. Bob Garrett is an honorable man, a veteran, who spilled blood on battlefields in defense of this nation at a time of war. In Garrett's eyes Wingman-you just are not worth it, nor are you WORTHY to question his character in that way . Now this is no criticism of of you and I'm not saying that you're some evil black ops undercover NSA cop or anything, the way I'm reading it is that you just don't seem to believe in the existence of Sasquatch and hey, that's your perogative, your right as a free-thinking American. You see Wingman YOU are the very person that veterans like Garrett, and my father, brother, uncles and grandparent went overseas to fight fascism and communism FOR-so that at some future day you could come to a place like this and that you will always have the right to call him a liar withOUT any repercussions. You should be thanking him. I will say this much in your defense though Wingman, at least you did the work, you went and dug up the information you were looking for and TOOK THE TIME that it took to listen and to get some answers, which is a LOT more than I have seen from other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) Skeptic or not, you cannot simply base the truthfulness of an account on such things. The fact that Wes Germer stated that two individuals were killed and one left in a mental institution should lead you to question why no trail of such a murder can be found. Yes, it is interesting that Garrett has not come out to deny that Wes claim is false, but that is not exactly his endorsement of Wes claim either, he is simply no longer talking about it. Two campers coming up dead should be something we could pin down in a more exact way through county morgue or other records, not simply relying on second hand hearsay. So kudos to the Skeptic for questioning this one...with that being said I still am in agreement that such a situation is possible, and perhaps that whole gang was making a point, or attempting to scare away the throng of wannabe researchers that can ruin a productive area...have you given that angle any consideration? Throwing a rouge shark into the waters makes for some pretty good surfing... Edited July 26, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) Skeptic or not, you cannot simply base the truthfulness of an account on such things. The fact that Wes Germer stated that two individuals were killed and one left in a mental institution should lead you to question why no trail of such a murder can be found. Yes, it is interesting that Garrett has not come out to deny that Wes claim is false, but that is not exactly his endorsement of Wes claim either, he is simply no longer talking about it. Two campers coming up dead should be something we could pin down in a more exact way through county morgue or other records, not simply relying on second hand hearsay. So kudos to the Skeptic for questioning this one...with that being said I still am in agreement that such a situation is possible, and perhaps that whole gang was making a point, or attempting to scare away the throng of wannabe researchers that can ruin a productive area...have you given that angle any consideration? Throwing a rouge shark into the waters makes for some pretty good surfing... Totally not correct. Sorry to disagree with you Lake, you can splash as much honey on the mess as you care but the whole issue of this thread has been the fallacy that we can be master of their own fate and we all would want what is right in our own eyes. No kudos for the skeptic nothing, it’s sad people are so easily fleeced. This whole Bigfoot community drips of denialist and skeptics and people who cannot speak for themselves and lack the courage thereof. You know, people that want to give kudos where it’s not due. I’ve been called some vile names here, I had the moderator in training shut down thread for no reason other than because it was in opposition to her views and I suppose it had nothing to do with a long career in the Forestry Service and the USDA background, but be that as it may. There is no kudos due here for anyone. (see this thread posted comments 10 June 2015 - 06:25 PM, 30 June 2015 - 06:03 PM) If I can be called names and falsely accused of being paid to promote a podcast and something like that over discussing a Bigfoot topic that I don't know if it ever occurred, what makes you feel entitled to grant them kudos? You weren't there Lake, if you were you weren't telling so you know about as much as everyone here to be truthful about it. You giving kudos blindly like that encourages and enables trolls to continue shutting this speech and for that you are mistaken. The cold hard realization that somebody, anybody armed with the disproportionate resources that may or may not have at their disposal who can allocate if for no other reason than to simply perpetuate the intrinsic interests they represent, forge efforts to influence the outcome at the expense of the public good should always be viewed skeptically and not discounted accordingly and you're giving kudos for that? Unbelievable people ... Edited July 26, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Well what kind of questions do you see harmful, and in what way? PSYOPS. The kind that mess with people's minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 So, it seems there are two camps I guess. Those who ask questions about the claims. You have to admit, they are fantastic. And, those who believe all questioners are subversives and plants. I just don't equate wanting some little signs of corroboration with these things. The whole cryptid world is about asking questions and exploring things most people won't. That curiosity doesn't stop when in the company of other BF enthusiasts, and it shouldn't. BG has made extraordinary claims. I believe his area is a hotspot of activity, some of it aggressive. But, there are doubts about the whole deal. No different than if I said I saw Sasquatch being hustled away in a UFO. Even the folks who've had close up sightings of BF or UFO's would question my account. As they should IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) Skeptic or not, you cannot simply base the truthfulness of an account on such things. The fact that Wes Germer stated that two individuals were killed and one left in a mental institution should lead you to question why no trail of such a murder can be found. Yes, it is interesting that Garrett has not come out to deny that Wes claim is false, but that is not exactly his endorsement of Wes claim either, he is simply no longer talking about it. Two campers coming up dead should be something we could pin down in a more exact way through county morgue or other records, not simply relying on second hand hearsay. So kudos to the Skeptic for questioning this one...with that being said I still am in agreement that such a situation is possible, and perhaps that whole gang was making a point, or attempting to scare away the throng of wannabe researchers that can ruin a productive area...have you given that angle any consideration? Throwing a rouge shark into the waters makes for some pretty good surfing... I received a message from a fellow Palm Beach County Sasquatch enthusiast who told me that in one of his "areas of investigation" just this past week 1 man was killed and another has gone missing and he said he can't understand why there is not ANY reporting about this in any of the papers or news broadcasts. So do you think maybe that there might be some governmental interests who don't WANT this kind of stuff to hit the public airwaves? Doesn't David Paulides citing hundreds and hundreds of similar cases warrant the same questioning? Edited July 26, 2015 by SoFla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 So, it seems there are two camps I guess. Those who ask questions about the claims. You have to admit, they are fantastic. And, those who believe all questioners are subversives and plants. I just don't equate wanting some little signs of corroboration with these things. The whole cryptid world is about asking questions and exploring things most people won't. That curiosity doesn't stop when in the company of other BF enthusiasts, and it shouldn't. BG has made extraordinary claims. I believe his area is a hotspot of activity, some of it aggressive. But, there are doubts about the whole deal. No different than if I said I saw Sasquatch being hustled away in a UFO. Even the folks who've had close up sightings of BF or UFO's would question my account. As they should IMHO. What's so extraordinary? Check the news...people/things are killing &/or maiming other people/things all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts