Jump to content
Guest

Campsite Destroyed

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

^Yes there is the occasional "It's a hoax because Bigfoot doesn't exist" claim, but it's usually the same few people over and over.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

I think I need a color key for some of these posts. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diana swampbooger

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

 

Garret's youtube was taken down last fall, by hack. He got it back up very soon thereafter. Then got disgusted(paid trolls) & took it down himself last winter. At which point, mysterious paid trolls started their tactics @ SC.

 

You might ask who are the paid trolls.

 

There very will could be, might be, other choice/s besides bureaucratic drones...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

I'm going ask, because I wonder... no other reason...

 

How do you know that it is paid trolls?  I just wonder why people would pay a group to troll an innocent BF researcher from TX? And what are the possible other choices? Does anyone know if that area is researched by any other groups/individuals?

 

After reading all of this, and seeing the vids, and watching the discussions here and elsewhere, I  don't buy the whole story. But at the same time, Bob Garrett just doesn't seem like a hoaxer.   When I first saw the Torn up Campsite video, I thought it was interesting.  Bob seemed sincere in his opinions of what he was seeing at the campsite.  I could see how a BF researcher could consider that maybe a BF might have had something to do with it with the tree breaks and stuff (although I thought it looked more like a campsite left by a group of drunken young adults).  But then when SC got involved and the whole thing evolved into a murder/missing person/killer BF/Government Cover up story - it just got really weird. 

 

What would be a real shame is if, in order to make a good internet podcast show story, Bob G's reputation/credibility was scarred.  I've wondered if he just got caught up in the whole thing.  If that's the case, then shame on Wes for using him that way.

 

Disclaimer:  Everything in this post is conjecture and speculation. I actually know nothing about it other than what I have read and have no proof of anything. Just putting thoughts out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChasingRabbits

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.

 

 

It fascinates me that you cannot grasp the concept that just because I think Garrett believes a Big Foot destroyed the camp, doesn't mean I share his belief.  Oh dear, I suppose you think I'm a Buddhist because I think Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama is the incarnation of a past lama.

 

I find your rationale very fascinating, Bodhi. If you say "I think Big Foot is a myth!", by your rationale, my thought should be "I don't believe Bodhi believes that. I think Bodhi believes Big Foot is a real, breathing, living, creature." which I can affirmatively back up with the evidence 1. Bodhi hangs around a Big Foot discussion forum 7 days a week, 2. Bodhi knows who's who in the Big Foot world from frauds to self-proclaimed researchers and 3. Bodhi knows enough about Big Foot to the point he can spot actual Big Foot behavior from fake Big Foot behavior. So based on your rationale, you are perhaps the biggest Big Foot believer here and no one should take your claim of skepticism with less than 1/10000000 of a grain of salt.

 

As I wrote, I understand you want to interrogate Bob Garrett, but have to settle with questioning people here. I will caution you again that your endeavor will be unsatisfying and unrewarding and unending, because in my case, I am not Bob Garrett, I do not have ESP powers to read his or other minds, and I haven't been in Texas since a lay-over at Dallas International about 15 or so years ago. Try barking up a better tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diana swampbooger

The leader paid troll a/k/a Pat G was banned from SC. He then moved his command to reddit using another name(forgot the name, don't care). It was interesting to watch the orders, then watch as he deleted the orders. Sloppy, obvious & ultimately, not effective. So, what was the point, you ask yourself. I'm kind of leaning towards typical corporate tactics. You ask, which corporate? Well, I'm willing to wait & be patient.

 

Cue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92OBNsQgxU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChasingRabbits

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.

 

thank you for admitting that you use your opinions, and not any real (read: objective) criteria.  BTW, you state "any active research is serious". So what proof do you have Garrett's research isn't "active"?

 

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.

 

What are "credible sources"?  Or are they "credible" because it's your opinion that they are....sorta like how you determine a researcher is "serious" based on your opinion.

 

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.

 

Of course, everything here is an opinion. That's why I can not understand this near obsession frenzy with suppressing opinions and/or trying to change opinions.

 

 

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.

 

Who determines that category is incorrect?

 

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.

 

Talk about semantics! Hoaxes are either hoaxes or they are not.

 

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.

 

The bias is that you base your conclusions on your opinions, not on facts or evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

The leader paid troll a/k/a Pat G was banned from SC. He then moved his command to reddit using another name(forgot the name, don't care). It was interesting to watch the orders, then watch as he deleted the orders. Sloppy, obvious & ultimately, not effective. So, what was the point, you ask yourself. I'm kind of leaning towards typical corporate tactics. You ask, which corporate? Well, I'm willing to wait & be patient.

 

Cue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92OBNsQgxU

 

I guess that's what I was wondering. How you guys (those that were actually there at SC when it all went down) determined this guy, Pat G, was a paid troll rather than you regular run of the mill BF topic troll that we see at every BF discussion venue. 

 

I once followed a link someone provided to the big spectacle that was going on over on Reddit and read some of that - it was quite a war of words.  I would think that it really was interesting to have seen what went down at SC before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChasingRabbits

 

 

 

 

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 what are the protocols Garrett did not follow? I brought the idea up because the idea of "standards" were brought up. And after asking and asking for them, no one can give an answer what (if any) protocols/standards/criteria are in the Big Foot research world, yet....there are lots of claims Garrett did not follow them.

 

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".

 

Based on what?

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.

 

When people cite  the lack of medical records or medical providers confirming injuries/hospitalizations/etc. as a "lack of evidence" it means these people do not know HIPAA, the US Code of Federal Regulations regarding HIPAA, PHI and what constitutes PHI, and why medical providers/hospitals cannot release PHI.

 

FYI, BigTreeWalker's "wildlife research" is a case report.

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.
 
Well, the fact is your opinion contradicts the evidence (Blacks Law Dictionary). Because as Garrett was statements were about himself, not someone else. But I'll give you that whatever Germer has said about the Garrett case is hearsay. Now how many people will go back and listen to those shows to see what Garrett said and what Germer said? (Probably the same number of people who actually looked up medical record release policies and regulations).
 

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.

 

Again, based on your "if it isn't documented, it didn't happen" idea, there is nothing that is self-evident, including the sun rising, the aroma of a vine ripened tomato, etc.

 

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.

 

It's obvious that you know nothing about chemistry, physics and biologic research standards/protocols if you think that the biologic sciences have the same research protocols and standards as a physics or chemistry study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ChasingRabbits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

As a corollary side note: On April 12, 2014 a Nevada rancher and federal rangers faced off in a confrontation that went public across the world. This came about after U.S. Bureau of Land Management seized cattle owned by a private rancher they claimed was grazing on property owned by government (meaning owned by all of us).

 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management claimed they tried to end the confrontation peacefully administratively and judicially but that didn’t work.  The people weren’t having any part of it. A police dog was kicked and people were roughed up but the stalemate continues.

 

The administratively and judicially part of the April 12, 2014 Nevada Bundy rancher episode sounds eerily similar to the B. Garrett Torn up Campsite business too.

 

Additionally, In Jayjeti's comment yesterday I have this comment. The part where somebody says or implies to another person “You can go missing like others,†is ominous and most disturbing. It was most disturbing and telling because it brilliantly unveils the first glimpse of the psychological angle to all this, if this was correctly stated…. In effect the “planted seeds†in the mind of the receiver is simply stating this: not only has “others†plural not singular disappeared but the message stands as a dire warning that “you can as well,†and for what? The message conveyed, if it was in fact, was intentional and in response for discussing or seeing something you are not supposed to see or know.  Again, the notion that anyone armed with the disproportionate resources they have at their disposal and 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 questioned.

Edited by Gumshoeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest diana swampbooger

I guess that's what I was wondering. How you guys (those that were actually there at SC when it all went down) determined this guy, Pat G, was a paid troll rather than you regular run of the mill BF topic troll that we see at every BF discussion venue. 

 

I once followed a link someone provided to the big spectacle that was going on over on Reddit and read some of that - it was quite a war of words.  I would think that it really was interesting to have seen what went down at SC before that.

 

That part gets nasty complicated...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

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.

so it is more plausible to you that state officials in texas played along with the feds to cover this up. The same tx which is using it's guard to monitor the feds running jade helm 15? It's more plausible that these two groups which do not get along are working in concert to cover up this attack? Is that REALLY your thinking? All kidding aside, is that really how you think?

It fascinates me that you cannot grasp the concept that just because I think Garrett believes a Big Foot destroyed the camp, doesn't mean I share his belief.  Oh dear, I suppose you think I'm a Buddhist because I think Tibetan Buddhists believe the Dalai Lama is the incarnation of a past lama.

 

I find your rationale very fascinating, Bodhi. If you say "I think Big Foot is a myth!", by your rationale, my thought should be "I don't believe Bodhi believes that. I think Bodhi believes Big Foot is a real, breathing, living, creature." which I can affirmatively back up with the evidence 1. Bodhi hangs around a Big Foot discussion forum 7 days a week, 2. Bodhi knows who's who in the Big Foot world from frauds to self-proclaimed researchers and 3. Bodhi knows enough about Big Foot to the point he can spot actual Big Foot behavior from fake Big Foot behavior. So based on your rationale, you are perhaps the biggest Big Foot believer here and no one should take your claim of skepticism with less than 1/10000000 of a grain of salt.

 

As I wrote, I understand you want to interrogate Bob Garrett, but have to settle with questioning people here. I will caution you again that your endeavor will be unsatisfying and unrewarding and unending, because in my case, I am not Bob Garrett, I do not have ESP powers to read his or other minds, and I haven't been in Texas since a lay-over at Dallas International about 15 or so years ago. Try barking up a better tree.

.

absolutely fascinating.

I guess that's what I was wondering. How you guys (those that were actually there at SC when it all went down) determined this guy, Pat G, was a paid troll rather than you regular run of the mill BF topic troll that we see at every BF discussion venue. 

 

I once followed a link someone provided to the big spectacle that was going on over on Reddit and read some of that - it was quite a war of words.  I would think that it really was interesting to have seen what went down at SC before that.

not a paid troll, a person who was really personally offended that he/she was paying for the SasCon stuff ounce it was shown that the Wes/Woody stories didn't hold water. There were a large number of people who were really shocked when the questions about the W/W encounter popped up and the responses from Wes were so unsatisfactory (meteor shower, super northern lights, comet came close and was similar to a full moon). The other SasCon hosts were also clearly disturbed by the inconsistencies of the stories, hence their departures from the SasCon show.

As a corollary side note: On April 12, 2014 a Nevada rancher and federal rangers faced off in a confrontation that went public across the world. This came about after U.S. Bureau of Land Management seized cattle owned by a private rancher they claimed was grazing on property owned by government (meaning owned by all of us).

 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management claimed they tried to end the confrontation peacefully administratively and judicially but that didn’t work.  The people weren’t having any part of it. A police dog was kicked and people were roughed up but the stalemate continues.

 

The administratively and judicially part of the April 12, 2014 Nevada Bundy rancher episode sounds eerily similar to the B. Garrett Torn up Campsite business too.

 

Additionally, In Jayjeti's comment yesterday I have this comment. The part where somebody says or implies to another person “You can go missing like others,†is ominous and most disturbing. It was most disturbing and telling because it brilliantly unveils the first glimpse of the psychological angle to all this, if this was correctly stated…. In effect the “planted seeds†in the mind of the receiver is simply stating this: not only has “others†plural not singular disappeared but the message stands as a dire warning that “you can as well,†and for what? The message conveyed, if it was in fact, was intentional and in response for discussing or seeing something you are not supposed to see or know.  Again, the notion that anyone armed with the disproportionate resources they have at their disposal and 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 questioned.

I live in Nevada, not far from Mesquite. Bundy was grazing his cattle on public lands and not paying for the privilege. The state/fed tried for years to get the guy to play by the rules that ALL the other ranchers out here play by but Bundy was recalcitrant. It's sorta' like ignoring the IRS, eventually you are going to have a knock on your door. There is no conspiracy or cover up with Bundy. He is not a good guy, he's said some extremely hateful things, on tape. It's a bad example to try to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

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

 

You're assuming he talks about it.  Garrett never talks about the torn up camp anymore.  He was recently on Sas. Chron. and he talked about other things.

so it is more plausible to you that state officials in texas played along with the feds to cover this up. The same tx which is using it's guard to monitor the feds running jade helm 15? It's more plausible that these two groups which do not get along are working in concert to cover up this attack? Is that REALLY your thinking? All kidding aside, is that really how you think?

 

 

Do you really think law enforcement agencies can't cooperate with one another or that these Feds don't know how to persuade other law enforcement?  The Feds likely took the lead early on.  The location of the incident falls under the Forest Service and the Dept. of the Interior, the alleged culprit of the so called MIB's covering up bigfoot.  You really don't know to what degree these Texas officials you claim were involved in something you doubt even occurred.

Edited by jayjeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bodhi

You're assuming he talks about it.  Garrett never talks about the torn up camp anymore.  He was recently on Sas. Chron. and he talked about other things.

 

Do you really think law enforcement agencies can't cooperate with one another or that these Feds don't know how to persuade other law enforcement?  The Feds likely took the lead early on.  The location of the incident falls under the Forest Service and the Dept. of the Interior, the alleged culprit of the so called MIB's covering up bigfoot.  You really don't know to what degree these Texas officials you claim were involved in something you doubt even occurred.

There is no evidence for the attack so that is evidence of a conspiracy.

The lack of evidence of a conspiracy is further evidence of a very well held together conspiracy.

How is this "hypothesis" falsified?

This thread has completely jumped the shark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No I disagree Bodhi, the thread is going where people in discussion take it, and at the moment it seems to be whether or not there was anything there. If [key word if] something did occur  why all the opposition, does the public have a right or need know this sort of thing?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...