Campsite Destroyed

[Guest diana swampbooger]

It's funny to hear this from you of all people. It's total hypocrisy:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41129-tree-manipulation-wood-structures-what-is-the-evidence/?p=899225

 

 

For a person complaining about "respect" you also don't seem to have any issues with responses like this:

 

"Sure. Care to step outside the BFF?"

 

Do you consider that being respectful? Or did you just blindly look over that comment? If she didn't want to provide examples then she shouldn't have answered my question in the first place. It's simple common courtesy to back up your own claims. Not doing so and expecting someone else to do the work is where your disrespect begins.

 

^^^ This is a excellent example of good ol' insidious, malevolent misdirection. 

 

Checkmate.

[chelefoot]

Back to the topic please. I am actually getting tired of doing edits today. Let's keep it civil and on topic.

[roguefooter]

^^^ This is a excellent example of good ol' insidious, malevolent misdirection. 

 

Checkmate.

 

Pointing out and giving examples for hypocrisy isn't misdirection. It's on topic with his complaint.

 

An example of misdirection would be: "Sure. Care to step outside the BFF?"

[Guest]

I can't go back and read every post so apologies if this has already been raised.  The footage is pretty good, even  in pitch blackness it is evident there is a destroyed camp site.  If it was meant it to be a hoax BF invasion then it was done very well.  In fact, it is a blair witch project quality.

 

If a hoax, I still question why go through the trouble.  Bob Garrett is not Justin Beiber so there is no money to be made on YouTube.  He doesn't cut the figure of an attention getter.  He's a Texas backwoods tracker type of guy.  Unless the mysterious benefactor of Sasquatch Chronicles is bankrolling an elaborate con job, Wes and his brother really are that shady, living the high life, driving Hummers, paying their actors well enough to stay in character and laughing all the way to the bank, then what is the point?

 

If in fact the site was actually destroyed by a BF not long before it was filmed by Garrett and team (as they state in the footage, also noting screams they heard from a distance earlier), why are there no traces of any burning embers from the camp fire?  Let's say a BF attack is in the realm of possibility, would it take care to stomp out every ember?  BF is not concerned with those details.  Trashing a camp fire means burning debris get scattered and the embers don't die that quickly.  Anyone who has had a camp fire knows that.

 

Do bears destroy camp sites and fires?  Typically no.  They go right for the food source or to maul a person for whatever reason.  They don't drag bodies away either (as was implied in the footage but inconclusive) and bears don't snap trees or leave the impression they went on a psychotic rampage.  I'm not seeing the parallel of an animal attack.  it is either a human did this to make it look like a BF attack or something did happen at that location.  My theory is no one was at the site and no one was killed or dragged away.  My theory is whoever was at the campsite was not there when BF rampaged through and there was no campfire.  Perhaps, this was a fed camp site.  PERHAPS and this is why Garrett got into trouble.  BTW, why was Garret scrutinized and not his team who was present?  Or were they hassled as well?  They are all privy to events.  Garrett held the camera but all are "guilty" of whatever the alleged feds were irked at him for.

 

As others have noted, it is odd how no there is no law enforcement report, no known missing persons.

 

If the alleged reason there are no police reports is because it was a fed stakeout camp site and the BFs got to them first, I'm just going to laugh this one off as really bad theater.  Too tabloid for my taste.  I think it was uninhabited and something did cruise through there.  If the story of the feds involvement is at all truthful it is entirely possible they had a stakeout camp.  No tech was on the footage to prove anything other than garbage was strewn around. I did not see anything in the way of clues.  It's all just theories.

Edited July 29, 2015 by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Text

[jayjeti]

 

 

If the evidence is solid then it will stand on it's own, and if Bigfoot is real then the creature cannot be debunked. So why are you people always so defensive? It seems your confidence in the existence of Bigfoot is shakier than mine.

 

 

That's apples and oranges.  Whether the evidence can stand on it's own is irrelevant considering the prospect of serial debunkers who will attack without much knowledge of what they are going after.  I've seen complaints about BFF on other forums where people like those environments better.  Healthy skepticism is good and necessary if one is trying to seek the truth, but the Internet (not just BFF) is increasingly full of trolls who like to disrupt and muddle things, and this forum is a good environment for that.   As Gumshoeye commented here recently, are some here to derail the discussion, and in my opinion BFF at times is not the healthiest place for bigfoot enthusiasts to get to the bottom of things.  

Edited July 28, 2015 by jayjeti

[jayjeti]

For the record Wes have never even MENTIONED BFF-EVER. You can't get away with just throwing stuff like that out there officer, you back that crap up with some facts, some tape. Maybe this is what seems to be bothering you and a few of your like-minded friends, you never had any people here questioning your claims, you guys have just been spewing them out with no basis of facts behind these (supposed) factual claims that you are so good at making, and then your buddies all pat you on the back, one after the next telling you about what a great post you just made. 

 

 

 

Johnny G., I'm going to have to agree with So, Fla on that.  I haven't listened to every single episode but I've never heard Wes attacking Bigfoot Forums.  I think it's been said here recently that extraordinary claims need evidence. 

[Guest diana swampbooger]

If in fact the site was actually destroyed by a BF not long before it was filmed by Garrett and team (as they state in the footage, also noting screams they heard from a distance earlier), why are there no traces of any burning embers from the camp fire?  Let's say a BF attack is in the realm of possibility, would it take care to stomp out every ember?  BF is not concerned with those details.  

 

 

I was wondering what vid you had viewed? The Torn Up Camp video definitely had burning wood & embers scattered about.

[Bonehead74]

That's apples and oranges. Whether the evidence can stand on it's own is irrelevant considering the prospect of serial debunkers who will attack without much knowledge of what they are going after. I've seen complaints about BFF on other forums where people like those environments better. Healthy skepticism is good and necessary if one is trying to seek the truth, but the Internet (not just BFF) is increasingly full of trolls who like to disrupt and muddle things, and this forum is a good environment for that. As Gumshoeye commented here recently, are some here to derail the discussion, and in my opinion BFF at times is not the healthiest place for bigfoot enthusiasts to get to the bottom of things.

You know what's comparing apples and oranges, Jay? Equating those who are skeptical of this particular story of Bob Garrett's (or the embellishment/manipulation thereof) with denialists/serial debunkers. A fair number of those who are questioning Mr. Garrett's tale are proponents of Bigfoot's existence and who don't doubt that attacks by bigfoot are possible, if not probable. You represent yourself poorly by not acknowledging the distinction. By not doing so, you and others appear as sycophantic cheerleaders, intolerant of those with a differing opinion, instead of the objective commentators you claim to be.

Concerning these other "environments" that are more conducive to discussing Bigfoot, would you care to name a few so we can check them out?

Finally, I'd like to point out that practically all of the name-calling and derogatory language in this thread has come from those who are championing Mr. Garrett's story. Also, you and a few notable others need to look up the definition of "troll" as it relates to the internet. No one who has been accused of being a troll has engaged in actual trolling behavior that I've seen. If they had, it would be dealt with by staff since the Rules & Guidelines forbid trolling. If you or others consider a post trolling, report it to a moderator and let them make a final determination.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

Johnny G., I'm going to have to agree with So, Fla on that. I haven't listened to every single episode but I've never heard Wes attacking Bigfoot Forums. I think it's been said here recently that extraordinary claims need evidence.

I've been slowly making my way through the podcasts from the first to where I'm at now at about 63. It was early on, because their negative attitude (mainly toward BFRO investigators) turned me off. Wes, I'm pretty sure it was him and not Woody, spent a minute or two talking about how he no longer came to BFF because of swarms of attackers. He didn't specify what sort of attacks or whether it was aimed at him or something he witnessed.

I wish I could tell you which podcast it was and at what minute the discussion took place, but I'd have to re-listen to a bunch of shows. Honestly, I don't find my statement here odd or hard to believe. Those guys, especially Wil, were pretty bad about insulting other squatchers. Not the ones on their show, of course, but often the investigators who initially responded to their witness' report. I am a fan of the show BTW. It has some issues, but it's good BF entertainment in a high quality format. I wish it was still rolling with all the members.

I am hesitant to post in this thread anymore Jay. I wanted to answer your question, though I'm sure some will see it as a non-answer. It's all I've got on that. I wasn't even a member here at the time. It might have been how I heard about BFF. It definitely wasn't something I thought was important, other than the negativity sticking in my craw. If you haven't done so, I highly recommend listening to the podcasts from the beginning. There are some great stories. My wife even got into them on a long trip, and she's no squatcher.

[Bodhi]

It's funny to hear this from you of all people. It's total hypocrisy:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41129-tree-manipulation-wood-structures-what-is-the-evidence/?p=899225

 

 

For a person complaining about "respect" you also don't seem to have any issues with responses like this:

 

"Sure. Care to step outside the BFF?"

 

Do you consider that being respectful? Or did you just blindly look over that comment? If she didn't want to provide examples then she shouldn't have answered my question in the first place. It's simple common courtesy to back up your own claims. Not doing so and expecting someone else to do the work is where your disrespect begins.

already out of plusses yet again Rogue but seriously, this is so spot on. It happens over and over again

I've been slowly making my way through the podcasts from the first to where I'm at now at about 63. It was early on, because their negative attitude (mainly toward BFRO investigators) turned me off. Wes, I'm pretty sure it was him and not Woody, spent a minute or two talking about how he no longer came to BFF because of swarms of attackers. He didn't specify what sort of attacks or whether it was aimed at him or something he witnessed.

I wish I could tell you which podcast it was and at what minute the discussion took place, but I'd have to re-listen to a bunch of shows. Honestly, I don't find my statement here odd or hard to believe. Those guys, especially Wil, were pretty bad about insulting other squatchers. Not the ones on their show, of course, but often the investigators who initially responded to their witness' report. I am a fan of the show BTW. It has some issues, but it's good BF entertainment in a high quality format. I wish it was still rolling with all the members.

I am hesitant to post in this thread anymore Jay. I wanted to answer your question, though I'm sure some will see it as a non-answer. It's all I've got on that. I wasn't even a member here at the time. It might have been how I heard about BFF. It definitely wasn't something I thought was important, other than the negativity sticking in my craw. If you haven't done so, I highly recommend listening to the podcasts from the beginning. There are some great stories. My wife even got into them on a long trip, and she's no squatcher.

Johnny,

The most recent episode of the "SasWhat" podcast exposed that a number of the people, places, roads quoted in the SasChron stories simply do not exist. The host will send you examples and links to his source websites if you email him.

Contacting him might save you endless hours of listening to hoaxed stories.....

You know what's comparing apples and oranges, Jay? Equating those who are skeptical of this particular story of Bob Garrett's (or the embellishment/manipulation thereof) with denialists/serial debunkers. A fair number of those who are questioning Mr. Garrett's tale are proponents of Bigfoot's existence and who don't doubt that attacks by bigfoot are possible, if not probable. You represent yourself poorly by not acknowledging the distinction. By not doing so, you and others appear as sycophantic cheerleaders, intolerant of those with a differing opinion, instead of the objective commentators you claim to be.

Concerning these other "environments" that are more conducive to discussing Bigfoot, would you care to name a few so we can check them out?

Finally, I'd like to point out that practically all of the name-calling and derogatory language in this thread has come from those who are championing Mr. Garrett's story. Also, you and a few notable others need to look up the definition of "troll" as it relates to the internet. No one who has been accused of being a troll has engaged in actual trolling behavior that I've seen. If they had, it would be dealt with by staff since the Rules & Guidelines forbid trolling. If you or others consider a post trolling, report it to a moderator and let them make a final determination.

Thank you Bonehead, I wish I was able to be as levelheaded in my responses to some of these posts. Well Done sir!!

Edited July 28, 2015 by Bodhi

[Guest]

Bodhi, you burst my bubble, but I'm not really surprised. I knew there were some BS stories, but some sounded so convincing that I held out hope. Well, it's still entertaining. Like a podcast version of Mountain Monsters! I still watch that😄

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Chasing,

You seemed to drop out of our little dialogue. In case you missed it here was my response.

 

Thanks for your concern, Bodhi. I'm not so personally invested in Big Foot that I remain on the Forums friday evenings, weekends (holidays or my vacation time). In fact, I don't post here from about 4PM to 7:30 AM. Again, it's because Big Foot isn't so near and dear to me that I'm compelled to be here 24/7.

 

When you posted on friday July 24, 2015 at 3:58 PM, I was filling my car with gas for my weekend trip. And when you posted on saturday, 1:20 PM July 25, 2015, I was collecting blue quartz, epidote and jasper specimens in a river bed.  So just to be clear, I take weekends (fridays 3: 30 PM to mondays 7:30 AM), holidays, and vacation off from the internet; therefore, do not expect activity from me on this forum during those hours. I hope this avoids misunderstandings in future.

 

I would have responded to you yesterday (monday), but the thread was locked. Anyhow, I have stated numerous times that there are things about the Bob Garrett case that do not make sense to me, so I don't understand why you persist in bombarding me with them. As for believing Garrett, I have said numerous times that I think Garrett believes Big Foot did it. Please note, that does not mean I believe a Big Foot did it and please do not continue to make the mistake of assuming I do. I totally understand that since Garrett will not submit to your interrogation directly, you have to make due with people here. I caution you, that your endeavor has proven and will continue to be unsatisfactory because (at least in my case) I can't read Garrett's mind and I wasn't there. In short, you are questioning the wrong person.

 

:-)

Edited July 28, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest]

It's funny to hear this from you of all people. It's total hypocrisy:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41129-tree-manipulation-wood-structures-what-is-the-evidence/?p=899225

 

 

For a person complaining about "respect" you also don't seem to have any issues with responses like this:

 

"Sure. Care to step outside the BFF?"

 

Do you consider that being respectful? Or did you just blindly look over that comment? If she didn't want to provide examples then she shouldn't have answered my question in the first place. It's simple common courtesy to back up your own claims. Not doing so and expecting someone else to do the work is where your disrespect begins.

 

I disagree with your opinion that I am somehow a hypocrite or disrespectful, that is your projection not mine.  

 

I cannot offer you an explanation for the comment just as you can’t presuppose what I think or feel now can you really?  Now before you read any further hear me out, I am as bewildered as you but I don’t interpret that as the same as a barroom challenge however, I see it more as a dare to debate outside of this forum than any threat.  I was occupied with some personal affairs all weekend and yesterday so things are a bit fuzzy. If it’s any consolation I would like to apologize if it would help but I would also add that I don’t believe it was intended in a negative sense. I don’t want to speak out of school but I believe SoFla., is a good person and passionate in his views.  Be that as it may, I do feel respect is a two-way street and not more for one side or another. I know you understand this.

 

You cannot control or dictate what another member on your side of fence says or feels any more than I can it is unfortunate but true but together we can set the example.  We can lead by example can we not?  You and me diametrically opposites in views right here and now discussing this is a start.  We begin by extending courtesies and being respectful and trusting of each other’s background and points of views meaning, the end of mockery and inflammatory words that we both know both sides use. Let's do it and get it done and get on with the thread discussion. 

 

Courtesy and respect is contagious!

[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.

 

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.

 

What are these protocols? If you cannot produce these protocols, you should stop referring to them.

 

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

 

So you're back to the presumption that anyone who shares their work are doing so for a wiki page and notoriety.

 

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?

 

You refer to standards and a protocols regarding Big Foot research and yet you cannot produce them. BTW, HIPAA came into this discussion because people here display their ignorance of US Federal patient privacy laws by asking for proof of medical records or by assuming hospitals can release any medical information except the patient's name. At least when I refer to a "protocol" or "standard" or "regulation" I can cite and post a link to it.

 

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.

 

Given the choice between what something "sounds like" to you and a definition in a legal textbook like Black's Law Dictionary, those of use who love real evidence and fact would choose Black's Law Dictionary.

 

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.

 

Based on your idea of if it isn't documented it didn't happen, the sun is not self-evident. In fact, based on your idea of if it isn't documented it didn't happen, nothing is self-evident. So for you to use self-evidence as an excuse is really, truly, laughable.

 

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.

 

It's obvious you don't know what these protocols/standards are, if you did, you wouldn't be asking me to look them up for you, you would have posted them or linked to them (like I linked and posted the US Code of Federal Regs concerning HIPAA and Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "hearsay"), and you would have known that the medical/biological sciences (which includes pharmacology and pharmacokinetics) use population based studies and chemistry and physics do not.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Bodhi]

I disagree with your opinion that I am somehow a hypocrite or disrespectful, that is your projection not mine.  

 

I cannot offer you an explanation for the comment just as you can’t presuppose what I think or feel now can you really?  Now before you read any further hear me out, I am as bewildered as you but I don’t interpret that as the same as a barroom challenge however, I see it more as a dare to debate outside of this forum than any threat.  I was occupied with some personal affairs all weekend and yesterday so things are a bit fuzzy. If it’s any consolation I would like to apologize if it would help but I would also add that I don’t believe it was intended in a negative sense. I don’t want to speak out of school but I believe SoFla., is a good person and passionate in his views.  Be that as it may, I do feel respect is a two-way street and not more for one side or another. I know you understand this.

 

You cannot control or dictate what another member on your side of fence says or feels any more than I can it is unfortunate but true but together we can set the example.  We can lead by example can we not?  You and me diametrically opposites in views right here and now discussing this is a start.  We begin by extending courtesies and being respectful and trusting of each other’s background and points of views meaning, the end of mockery and inflammatory words that we both know both sides use. Let's do it and get it done and get on with the thread discussion. 

 

Courtesy and respect is contagious!

Those are noble words but I would appreciate it if you would take the time to speak to the vitriol which has been documented. You took the time to take skeptics to task for our supposed tone in this discussion, why not take the time to do the same for the adherents?