Campsite Destroyed

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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?

 

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.

How do you determine if someone is "serious about their research"?

 

I agree with you that everything should be questioned---everything---including the "well, it's a hoax because I say it's a hoax" arguments.

 

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.

 

Really? You don't care about "teams" but you've "questioned and argued with people on both sides of the argument" (but you don't care about teams........)

 

Do these little categorical things really bother you that much?

 

These little categorical things only bother people who like to fit everyone into nice little categories like "proponents", "believers", "skeptics", etc.

 

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 medical field has a better success rate and a lower scam rate because they have standards and protocols, which the Big Foot field does not. I can go to the website of any board of medicine in the US and find out who is licensed to practice medicine, what medical school and residency programs they attended, any disciplinary actions taken against them, if they are board-certified in their specialty, if they are current with their continuing medical education credits, etc. The Big Foot field doesn't have that.

 

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.

 

I agree with you.  Garrett, his supporters and his critics didn’t jump on it and make records requests back in 2013. Most likely because they had faith that 911 calls are never, ever, ever purged  and will always be available forever and ever and ever.  It’s just like the “faith†people have that healthcare professionals and hospitals will release PHI because they think PHI is only a person’s name.

.

 

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.

 

For something to be “commonâ€, it has to be identified frequently. Therefore to state “hoaxes are commonâ€, the hoaxes would need to be identified frequently. And for a hoax to be identified as a hoax, it needs to be exposed as one otherwise, it wouldn’t be a hoax.

 

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.

 

In other words,  you base your conclusions on your subjective (and biased) considerations because there are no protocols that exist in the Big Foot world.

[Bodhi]

Chasing,

 

It's a very fine line which you tread. You believe that B.G. believes it because why would he lie. Even though he's presented no other proof than his word and all publicly accessible corroborating proof which would be present if such an occurrence happened is missing. The back flips required for all such proof, which should be apparent naturally, to be missing requires such leaps of faith that I'm amazed by your belief in B.G.'s belief in his own story.

 

I'm not talking about missing casts or the lack of any hair, blood, etc which would have required B.G. to preserve. For whatever reason he chose not to do any of that work which would have backstopped his claims, fine. But the evidence which naturally results when people are murdered in parks or go missing or make 911 calls or have family's who notice that "bob" and "tom" never came back from their camping trip is non-existent. It should all exist but none of it does. I could accept if some of it were missing, I am willing to accept that humans make mistakes and erase records/lose things but I am unwilling to accept that all the different agencies which would have been associated with such an event have lost/erased all records of the event. Occam's razor suggests, strongly, that the evidence isn't there because there was no such incident.

 

I wish you well, your credulity is simply fascinating.

[jayjeti]

 you and others appear as sycophantic cheerleaders, intolerant of those with a differing opinion, instead of the objective commentators you claim to be.

 

 

I was involved in this thread a good bit early on and at other times, and  people with hardly any knowledge of this incident were calling it fake and Bob Garrett a hoaxer right out of the gate without any evidence of that.  It gets silly, and it exposes some are only here to debunk and derail the discussion.  You group me in with everyone else you're discussing this with and you need to slow down.

[jayjeti]

Chasing,

It's a very fine line which you tread. You believe that B.G. believes it because why would he lie. Even though he's presented no other proof than his word and all publicly accessible corroborating proof which would be present if such an occurrence happened is missing. The back flips required for all such proof, which should be apparent naturally, to be missing requires such leaps of faith that I'm amazed by your belief in B.G.'s belief in his own story.

 

I'm not talking about missing casts or the lack of any hair, blood, etc which would have required B.G. to preserve. For whatever reason he chose not to do any of that work which would have backstopped his claims, fine. But the evidence which naturally results when people are murdered in parks or go missing or make 911 calls or have family's who notice that "bob" and "tom" never came back from their camping trip is non-existent. It should all exist but none of it does. I could accept if some of it were missing, I am willing to accept that humans make mistakes and erase records/lose things but I am unwilling to accept that all the different agencies which would have been associated with such an event have lost/erased all records of the event. Occam's razor suggests, strongly, that the evidence isn't there because there was no such incident.

 

I wish you well, your credulity is simply fascinating.

 

Since the charge being made is government cover up why would you say lack of government records says this is all made up?  That goes round robin.  And you can't say there is no evidence.  There are the films showing the torn up camp at night that was erased when he went back the next day, and Garrett was not alone.  Claims of people being dead did not come from Garrett, although Garrett thought he gleaned from being interviewed by law enforcement that there might be some missing people.  But they didn't specify their fate.  It was Wes Germer who allegedly found someone in government who came forward with knowledge of the incident and informed on it and said there were people killed.  Now, you can say, "I don't believe it," and I can't say if I know how true that is, but you and others have no evidence that Bob Garrett is perpetrating a hoax, that he shut down his own website, youtube channel, facebook page, etc. after showing video evidence of government cover up and speaking out, which is the charge being made against Garrett.  

 

According to Garrett he saw blood, shell casings that looked like someone was firing in all directions, many large bare footprints in the camp, trees snapped 12 feet up, what looked like brand new tents and gear torn up and scattered, and a pattern in the soil that looked like a body may have been dragged out of the camp.  You comment about there being no footprint casts or blood evidence.  According to Garrett they left to inform authorities, I assume to get in cell phone range, and when they came back the next day it was all erased, so no way to cast or collect blood.  Since this incident is alleged government cover up the Occam's razor you allude to that lack of government records indicates it never happened is a somewhat circular argument against Garrett's claims.  He spoke about these things in podcast interviews.  

[Bonehead74]

I was involved in this thread a good bit early on and at other times, and people with hardly any knowledge of this incident were calling it fake and Bob Garrett a hoaxer right out of the gate without any evidence of that. It gets silly, and it exposes some are only here to debunk and derail the discussion. You group me in with everyone else you're discussing this with and you need to slow down.

So, here we are, eighty-five pages later. What evidence (besides an ambiguous video and personal anecdotes) has been proffered to lend credence to Mr. Garrett's claims? Nothing has come to light to counter the assumptions made by the debunkers. Perhaps some initial reactions were knee-jerk, but they have not yet been shown to be wrong after all the subsequent time and debate. Edited July 28, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Bodhi]

nicely stated

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Well, Bonehead, the 'debunkers' can also say Garrett has purple skin, has as much validity. Shows you how much research went into 'the debunkers' assumptions.

[Guest Divergent1]

 

 

 

Previous comments in this multiquote were edited for the sake of clarity

 

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

 

What are these protocols? That is the entire point, in Garret's case there aren't any. Just as an aside, you originally brought up the topic of protocols, I was just responding.

 

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

 

Not necessarily, but in Garret's case, I would say the answer is "yes".

 

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.

 

I thought your FYI on HIPAA was an assumption that we were all ignorant. As I recall only one person here asked about hospital records. As for research models or protocols that could be used for bigfoot research, all you have to do is look up study protocols for wildlife research to get your answer. To use BigTreeWalker as an example, they had 3 or 4 bone piles so they used the case study method. I'm not doing your homework for you.

 

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.

 

Well the fact is that Garrett can't present any facts to back up his story about what the government said or did to him. Technically that is hearsay by Black's Law Dictionary. It doesn't do you any good to look things up if you can't understand how to apply the concept to real world situations, or not so real, in this case.

 

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.

 

Well laugh away while the sun shines on both of us. If you don't document your actions or steps taken in research then it really isn't research. If you take a shirt back to Wal Mart for a return you can't prove you bought it at their store without a receipt. If Garrett says regulatory agencies interfered with his "research" but can't provide the reports then it didn't happen. It's pretty self evident, or at least one would think.

 

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.

 

I don't need to ask you to look them up for me. Do you not understand that physics and chemistry are not bodies of science that are distinct and separate from each other? Laws of physics define how chemicals move across membranes and interact with each other, once again, an example of willful ignorance on your part as evidenced by your argument. I guess you have no idea what kind of research is involved with GMO's do you? I'm not doing your homework for you but I will say this, you make too many assumptions about what I do and don't know. We can continue going back and forth with this topic that you brought up regarding the lack of research protocols in bigfoot research to justify Garrett's lack of documentation for any of  the events he claims happened but I seriously doubt you'll look any more intelligent than you already think you are after I get done with you.

 

 

 

 

 

[jayjeti]

Well, Bonehead, the 'debunkers' can also say Garrett has purple skin, has as much validity. Shows you how much research went into 'the debunkers' assumptions.

 

Good point.  Where is the evidence that Bob Garrett hoaxed this or has faked anything?  It's pretty much an argument from silence (not enough corroborating evidence).  Wes Germer allegedly had a government source for his info on it.  That could be considered corroborating evidence.  But if one is inclined to dismiss other evidence that is ignored too.   Why would Bob Garrett go to such extremes to commit this fraud?  It doesn't seem to have a monetary motive.  His youtube channel going down along with his blog talk radio account forfeits a lot of ad revenue.  It's alleged that Mr. Garrett was warned not to discuss this with anyone, but he went ahead and released some video and publicly spoke up, and the Feds took action by wiping out his media outlets since he had some real damning evidence exposing what they do. 

 

Here is a comment from a site about this subject.  I'm not sure how old this is:

 

 

"Bigfoot researcher Bob Garrett found and filmed a campsite in Eastern Texas last summer that looked like a crime scene. It took authorities over 16 hours to come out to the campsite. Mr. Garrett was warned by the Feds (Bureau of Land Management/Homeland Security and Federal Game Wardens) not to talk about it but he posted a partial video on his YouTube channel and later talked on blog talk radio about the threats made against him. His YouTube account and Facebook account was deleted as if they never existed. He also was locked out of his Blog talk radio account. His computer also was hacked and files/photos stolen and or deleted and his phones tapped. He hired an attorney after he was threatened with jail time. He and his wife also has been almost run off the road while driving and they are harassed every time they leave home. Bob Garrett was told he could go missing like others. What this guy did at worse was to investigate and try to render aid to any campers - although none were found. Government overreach and harassment is totally stupid and needs to be brought to light. More on this is on Sasquatch Chronicles Blog Talk Radio show."

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2smafs/bigfoot_researcher_forced_to_stop_by_us_govt/

 

So, the argument Bodhi made that Garrett made up the government covering up the torn up camp because there are no government records supporting Mr. Garrett is very much a circular argument against government damage control.

[Bodhi]

Since the charge being made is government cover up why would you say lack of government records says this is all made up?  That goes round robin.  And you can't say there is no evidence.  There are the films showing the torn up camp at night that was erased when he went back the next day, and Garrett was not alone.  Claims of people being dead did not come from Garrett, although Garrett thought he gleaned from being interviewed by law enforcement that there might be some missing people.  But they didn't specify their fate.  It was Wes Germer who allegedly found someone in government who came forward with knowledge of the incident and informed on it and said there were people killed.  Now, you can say, "I don't believe it," and I can't say if I know how true that is, but you and others have no evidence that Bob Garrett is perpetrating a hoax, that he shut down his own website, youtube channel, facebook page, etc. after showing video evidence of government cover up and speaking out, which is the charge being made against Garrett.  

 

According to Garrett he saw blood, shell casings that looked like someone was firing in all directions, many large bare footprints in the camp, trees snapped 12 feet up, what looked like brand new tents and gear torn up and scattered, and a pattern in the soil that looked like a body may have been dragged out of the camp.  You comment about there being no footprint casts or blood evidence.  According to Garrett they left to inform authorities, I assume to get in cell phone range, and when they came back the next day it was all erased, so no way to cast or collect blood.  Since this incident is alleged government cover up the Occam's razor you allude to that lack of government records indicates it never happened is a somewhat circular argument against Garrett's claims.  He spoke about these things in podcast interviews.  

I didn't write anything about a government coverup (are you suggesting a government crossing between state and federal authorities?).

The families of the purported missing/killed have never appeared.

I can say there is no evidence because no evidence has been presented.

The two films show zero blood, same with footprints and shell casings. I've watched both videos (night & daylight) the next day video certainly did not seem like any sort of cover-up had occurred. If there is a third daylight video showing please let me know.

You mentioned that B.G. was not alone, true, he was with his son during the night and day videos. Take that for what it's worth.

 

For the record I've NEVER said that B.G. perpetrated a hoax, I have NO idea what he was up to. What I was clear about was the evidence which should exist in the public record does not exist. To believe B.G. is to accept his story in the absence of that which should exist.

 

I clearly stated that I was NOT talking about the failure of B.G. to collect blood or footprints, those things would have required the B.G. have collection materials available. But no family complaining of lost/killed family members? No 911 records? No reports in the records of any state or federal agency. Again, believe B.G. if you wish but there is zero evidence to back up his claims. I prefer evidence when someone is claiming that a sasquatch attacked multiple people destroying a campsite in the process, killing and injuring said people.

 

With regard to the website, youtube, facebook. Munchausen syndrome? It's difficult to guess the motivation of individuals. Why did Standing do what he has done? Frustration? Money? Fame? Again, I cannot know their motivations but not knowing doesn't preclude me from looking at the evidence or lack thereof.

[jayjeti]

I didn't write anything about a government coverup (are you suggesting a government crossing between state and federal authorities?).

The families of the purported missing/killed have never appeared.

I can say there is no evidence because no evidence has been presented.

 

 

You've stated there are no government records supporting the incident.  The major part of the story is the government covering up the incident, doing damage control.  You can't expect records if that major issue in this story is true.  Your not acknowledging that issue doesn't remove it as a major facet of the story that can be ignored.  You ask, where are the parents of the victims.  Its safe to say no one knows who they are, or if it is indeed government cover up, what the families were told.  And you can say there is no supporting evidence as far as records, true, but if the allegations about the government are true, there might not be any records available.    It's a catch 22, and you might not say he hoaxed or not, but people who to do proclaim Garrett made it up do not use known evidence, such as caught in lies or being know to hoax things, but rests on arguments from silence that he needs more corroborating evidence.  

 

If you reject this reason for no records you're certainly in your right to have that opinion.

Edited July 29, 2015 by jayjeti

[roguefooter]

How do you determine if someone is "serious about their research"?

 

I agree with you that everything should be questioned---everything---including the "well, it's a hoax because I say it's a hoax" arguments.

 

You seem to be affixed with semantics. I already explained how I view it. Any active research is serious, as opposed to pretending to research with a hoax. Again, Rick Dyer is a good example- he pretended to be a researcher when in fact it was all just a big hoax.

 

I've seen very few people ever exclaim "well, it's a hoax because I say it's a hoax". It's usually based on the evidence- which a lack of credible sources or supporting evidence ( like reports that should absolutely exist) can be viewed as evidence in itself.

 

Really? You don't care about "teams" but you've "questioned and argued with people on both sides of the argument" (but you don't care about teams........)

 

 

Yes really. "Both sides of the argument" is either supporting the argument or challenging the argument. They're not teams, they're just opinions. I don't care who the opinion comes from.

 

These little categorical things only bother people who like to fit everyone into nice little categories like "proponents", "believers", "skeptics", etc.

 

 

A lot of people in this field have openly placed themselves into a specific category. If they want to identify with a specific mindset then they can. These categories are also generally accepted in the field, so why would anybody have a problem with them? The only issue I have is when the category is incorrect.

 

For something to be “commonâ€, it has to be identified frequently. Therefore to state “hoaxes are commonâ€, the hoaxes would need to be identified frequently. And for a hoax to be identified as a hoax, it needs to be exposed as one otherwise, it wouldn’t be a hoax.

 

 

Again you're getting really into semantics. Most hoaxes here have been determined by the evidence and not any real proof. The general forum will either agree or disagree. Very rarely can we label something absolutely a hoax.

 

In other words,  you base your conclusions on your subjective (and biased) considerations because there are no protocols that exist in the Big Foot world.

 

 

What bias would that be? I've been labeled as anti-Bigfoot by some, and a proponent by others. As I said before I base my conclusion on the evidence- that's what usually determines which way I lean in the debate.

[roguefooter]

 

So apparently the youtube site that he had that didn't get taken down is back up again except with only two new videos on it. I guess we just dreamed the whole campsite video. hey when they right they're right and in this case I guess they must have been.

https://youtu.be/IrC42cDvD80

 

So for anyone supporting this Government cover up theory- why is his site back up?

 

Is YouTube challenging it's authority over the US Government now?

 

Why are more videos allowed to be posted if this is an act of Government suppression? When the Government takes down a site they don't allow the people to just keep operating.

 

It seems pretty weak and sloppy work for the Government.

Edited July 29, 2015 by roguefooter

[roguefooter]

 The major part of the story is the government covering up the incident, doing damage control.  You can't expect records if that major issue in this story is true.  Your not acknowledging that issue doesn't remove it as a major facet of the story that can be ignored.  You ask, where are the parents of the victims.  Its safe to say no one knows who they are, or if it is indeed government cover up, what the families were told.

 

Yet this cover up and "damage control" still allows Bob to go on podcasts and do interviews to talk all about it.

[Guest]

 

I've seen very few people ever exclaim "well, it's a hoax because I say it's a hoax". 

 

 

 

 

I thought you are a regular in the PGF section. There are a number of people who have basically said exactly that, as there really isn't any real evidence it's a hoax, just their opinion that bigfoot doesn't exist.