Campsite Destroyed

[LeafTalker]

Sure did not leave the muppet for me.    My returns to that location are entirely random and not predictable.

 

You found the muppet, did you not? It could very well have been left for you, and only you. 

 

If you become known to them (as you clearly have), you get on their 'radar', and they can read you from long distances. If you were thinking about going to that location, they knew what you were thinking and planning long before you got there. 

 

Gumshoeye, Louis CK is a standup comic and filmmaker who writes, stars in, and shoots his own TV show. He's very, very funny (sometimes in a dark way), and very thoughtful and introspective. And I think you're right, Diana, a BF would totally get Louis CK's humor. (Did CK do a show that featured a muppet toy? I don't get the cable station his show is on, so I'm way behind on my Louis CK viewing....)  

 

And Gumshoeye, I think Airdale and SWWASP have noticed that Wes Germer referred to some mountain near his sighting as "Muppet Mountain", so SWWASP is thinking that the blue muppet doll/toy that he (SWWASP) found one day on an investigation might have been placed there by Germer. (SWWASP talked about finding the muppet toy on another thread and showed us a picture of it, but I don't remember which thread it was.) I think he was joking about Germer leaving the puppet for him to find, though (but maybe he can explain). 

[clubbedfoot]

Louis CK is a comedic genius....

Edited April 27, 2015 by clubbedfoot

[LeafTalker]

Totally.  

[Guest]

^^^

Made perfect sense to me after your explanation Leaftalker, thank you I guess I don’t watch enough television and it helps explains Diana’s earlier comment. Ahh .. show me a good book and I'll choose it over television every time. :-)

 

Clubbbedfoot says he’s a comedic genius so I think you've both gotten to the core of my question. Thanks again.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

Fred Beck, in his 1924 story details his experience as one of five prospectors who allegedly shot a Bigfoot were besieged by angry bipeds who attacked their Washington cabin. Besides the obvious time and location how does that story differ from what the gentleman recounts in his destroyed campsite experience? Isn't there any similarities to be drawn between the two?   

 

There were no SC hosts or paid for radio programs then ...  

 

There was a shooting involved …

 

There were people involved …

 

They were out in the wilds …

 

In the Beck incident, but for the stout solid fortification of the cabin nobody was killed, unlike the Texas incident.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Ok, but who is going to do this? And will it be kept a secret so people can't read into it, and come to a ''more correct'' story?

 

There is plenty of low hanging fruit.

 

As stated, I'm going with a 50% baseline false nonsense. That way my expectations are curbed to a known quantity X, and I start looking at the report and looking for nonsense.

 

Actually, Dr. Meldrum just gave a talk and stated issues with the hoaxers, too much BS, so I'm in good company, of course.

 

In the world of scientific research, the people who do this are grad students who need to write something for their doctorate's degree. As for sharing the information, isn't that the purpose of Big Foot conferences and websites like this one?

 

Dismiss this as "low hanging fruit" but if you and the rest of the Big Foot community want to be able to separate the wheat from the shaft with any type of legitimacy or objectivity, this data analysis has to be done and statistics have to be figured out. Otherwise, hoax busting will be too subjective because the people who think Big Foot is nocturnal will toss out any daytime encounters as "hoax" and the people who think Big Foot is diurnal will toss out night time encounters as "hoax". Likewise the people who think Big Foot is a solitary creature will toss out any group sightings as "hoax" and the people who think Big Foot is a social creature (ie: lives in groups) will toss out any solitary encounters as "hoax".

[Guest]

^^^

@Chasing Rabbits and Wag - Thanks for this. I agree, in most cases. I am not taking either of you to task but rather looking for a your explanation.  

 

Couple of points here:

 

Just to be clear the metaphor used to describe lowest form is simplest is best form is not and should not be confused with fruit of the loom drawers … (Blush) LOL please.

 

Secondly, if as many have already suggested on numerous occasions there is a likeness yet, unique closeness to human DNA and physical attributes why is it not enough to consider that human beings are also active at night.

 

Thirdly, while we are social beings we also either choose to live solitary or communally. So let me make sure I understand you, are you saying that – statistics will somehow ensure hoaxes will be separated from non-hoaxes? That is in effect what the BFF group doing at this present to some effect. I question what effect statistics would have on clearing murky waters or delineating hoax or non-hoaxes.

[SWWASAS]

Blue muppet? I have no idea what you are talking about, but I would agree except we’d both be wrong so let me put it this way. The beauty of being humans is our ability to think.  And with thought comes opinions.  Everything's relative, and just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't (or didn't) exist or that each of us will grasp the reasoning, or understand the motive taking place until you experience it personally.

 

Sorry Diana S, I'm almost afraid to ask, but I'll roll the dice take the bait and ask anyways what is Lewis CK?

This is the referenced muppet that I found at my telescope observation ridge location. Wes and Woody mentioned Muppet Mountain in one of their broadcasts.

 

 

@Airdale how did we go from Campsite Destroyed and SC to blue muppets?

[Guest]

SWWASAS PROJECT -  I seen it now for the second time thanks no need to repost it.

[Sunflower]

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

Your blue "muppet" had surgery done almost like a red stuffed teddy bear that I left at the gifting area.  They left it for me exactly on the logs and rock where I left them gifts.  It had surgery on its back and looks amazingly like what you have posted.

 

I believe that they use the same technique on real flesh and blood.  So many reports of deer, horses, dogs being sliced open.  They have very thick fingernails not claws.  Try it yourself, pull a piece of plastic or thin fabric very taut and use your finger nail like a blade, it works.  I've done it. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Sunflower

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

So let me make sure I understand you, are you saying that – statistics will somehow ensure hoaxes will be separated from non-hoaxes? That is in effect what the BFF group doing at this present to some effect. I question what effect statistics would have on clearing murky waters or delineating hoax or non-hoaxes.

 

The statistics would be based on the data analyzed. To make the math really easy (for me), let's say there are a total of 1000 Big Foot sightings/stories from 1800 to 2014. Of the 1000 sightings, 450 were nocturnal and 480 were diurnal. The remaining 70 encounters did not mention the time of day.  So of the 930 encounters that noted the time of day, 480 were daytime sightings and 450 were night time.  What would this mean? It would mean that you are about as likely to encounter Big Foot during night time as you would during  daytime. It would also mean using the time of day  only to validate (or invalidate) an encounter would be non-factual, because there is no statistical significance that Big Foot is a primarily nocturnal or diurnal creature.

 

In other words, data analysis could eliminate this "well, I believe Big Foot would never venture out in broad daylight so I believe people who say they saw a Big Foot during while they were driving on the highway about 1: 45 PM are not telling the truth"  stuff---because the data does not support it.

 

Notice, I say "could eliminate" because if the data is cherry-picked to support nocturnal sightings, then the numbers will be skewed to favor nocturnal sightings. vice versa.

 

If there is an organization doing this data analysis, good for the Big Foot community. If they don't cherry pick data, even better for the Big Foot community.

[Guest]

In the world of scientific research, the people who do this are grad students who need to write something for their doctorate's degree. As for sharing the information, isn't that the purpose of Big Foot conferences and websites like this one?

 

Dismiss this as "low hanging fruit" but if you and the rest of the Big Foot community want to be able to separate the wheat from the shaft with any type of legitimacy or objectivity, this data analysis has to be done and statistics have to be figured out. Otherwise, hoax busting will be too subjective because the people who think Big Foot is nocturnal will toss out any daytime encounters as "hoax" and the people who think Big Foot is diurnal will toss out night time encounters as "hoax". Likewise the people who think Big Foot is a solitary creature will toss out any group sightings as "hoax" and the people who think Big Foot is a social creature (ie: lives in groups) will toss out any solitary encounters as "hoax".

Your making a mountain out of a molehill here. There is no official BF hoax-investigation group, someone might pop-up a story that sounds "fishy", as I have tried in the past with low-mixed results.

 

BFRO does the best job in having real interviews, and the interviewer comments on how believable the story is. That's the closest, there is nothing for the Blog-talk sphere.

 

There have been videos posted, the Christmas Oregon, and Idaho videos are a good point, and there are plenty people here who think they are fake. Same with the Estes Park video. I thought the Idaho was real because of the 20' jump it made down the hill, etc.

 

Low hanging fruit would be the blogtalk I posted, and no-one listened to/commented on. Doesn't seem to be much interest in this particular perspective of the topic, seems easier for people to be critical of videos, not blog-talks.

 

 

 

So, if I come across more outlandishly silly blogtalks, or something doesn't sound right, I may try to post it again, but not expecting much at this point about any useful input.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Your making a mountain out of a molehill here. There is no official BF hoax-investigation group, someone might pop-up a story that sounds "fishy", as I have tried in the past with low-mixed results.

 

BFRO does the best job in having real interviews, and the interviewer comments on how believable the story is. That's the closest, there is nothing for the Blog-talk sphere.

 

There have been videos posted, the Christmas Oregon, and Idaho videos are a good point, and there are plenty people here who think they are fake. Same with the Estes Park video. I thought the Idaho was real because of the 20' jump it made down the hill, etc.

 

Low hanging fruit would be the blogtalk I posted, and no-one listened to/commented on. Doesn't seem to be much interest in this particular perspective of the topic, seems easier for people to be critical of videos, not blog-talks.

 

 

 

So, if I come across more outlandishly silly blogtalks, or something doesn't sound right, I may try to post it again, but not expecting much at this point about any useful input.

 

Au contraire, I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm merely stating how to establish OBJECTIVE standards and criteria  via objective data analysis.

 

If there is no Big Foot organization that is currently shifting through the available data, analyzing it and publishing their findings, then these feelings of things sounding fishy are just that: unsubstantiated subjectively biased feelings and nothing more.

 

Look at this thread. Because there is no Big Foot organization (or individual researchers) who have published their analysis of available data, we have 2 opinions about the possibility of Big Foot attacking/destroying a camp and killing/hurting campers. One group has the opinion that Big Foot are unlikely to do so, so Bob Garrett is off his rocker if he thinks a Big Foot destroyed that camp. Another opinion group has the opinion that Big Foot is capable of destroying a camp and Bob Garrett is spot on thinking a Big Foot did that.

 

The way to "solve" that clash of opinions is data analysis. Not this "Oh I have a feeling that" or "Oh I don't think that" stuff: that is subjective, baseless garbage that has no place in any serious attempt to validate or invalidate an account. Look at the data, analyze it, and use statistics to predict the probability (read: likelihood) of a behavior.  Period.

[Guest]

The statistics would be based on the data analyzed. To make the math really easy (for me), let's say there are a total of 1000 Big Foot sightings/stories from 1800 to 2014. Of the 1000 sightings, 450 were nocturnal and 480 were diurnal. The remaining 70 encounters did not mention the time of day.  So of the 930 encounters that noted the time of day, 480 were daytime sightings and 450 were night time.  What would this mean? It would mean that you are about as likely to encounter Big Foot during night time as you would during  daytime. It would also mean using the time of day  only to validate (or invalidate) an encounter would be non-factual, because there is no statistical significance that Big Foot is a primarily nocturnal or diurnal creature.

 

In other words, data analysis could eliminate this "well, I believe Big Foot would never venture out in broad daylight so I believe people who say they saw a Big Foot during while they were driving on the highway about 1: 45 PM are not telling the truth"  stuff---because the data does not support it.

 

Notice, I say "could eliminate" because if the data is cherry-picked to support nocturnal sightings, then the numbers will be skewed to favor nocturnal sightings. vice versa.

 

If there is an organization doing this data analysis, good for the Big Foot community. If they don't cherry pick data, even better for the Big Foot community.

 

@Chasing Rabbits - Well done and great example!

 

@ Airdale, Leaftalker, Chasing Rabbits and Cisco - (Reference post#620) I was drawn to this discussion because of its interest to so many people, including me in referring to my earlier post how does this Jim Garrett incident differ from the Fred Beck incident of 1924? Any comments?

 

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT –  I don’t know what to think about the blue muppet deal other than it being a childish prank … possibly? I don't know. I see junk in the woods from time to time like pillows, car seats, filthy trash either left behind or discarded intentionally but never stuffed animals or other inanimate objects such as you listed.

 

@ Sunflower -  I also have to agree, I’ve read many reports of similar scarring or scratches that lead me to conclude that fingernails have done some seriously but dissimilar to claws of big cats or bears.

 

@ Wag - I made be reading too much into your message but I am not certain Chasing Rabbits was taking issue with you as much as it appeared. I believe it was more of an instance of restating something he (or she sorry I apologize) recently went over.  

 

Edited April 27, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

 

@ Airdale, Leaftalker, Chasing Rabbits and Cisco - (Reference post#620) I was drawn to this discussion because of its interest to so many people, including me in referring to my earlier post how does this Jim Garrett incident differ from the Fred Beck incident of 1924? Any comments?

 

I don't think Garrett's torn up camp and the Ape Canyon incident are different, in regards to opinions of their veracity. (Add the Honobia incident to that as well.)

 

People who are of the opinion that Big Foot is capable of attacking/killing people will believe these events to be possible. People who are of the opinion that Big Foot is not capable of attacking/killing people will believe these events are impossible. And until the data is examined and analyzed for the probability of this behavior, all of this will still be opinion.

 

Frankly, I'm rather surprised that this data analysis has not been done yet or has not been done on a formal level and that the data hasn't been shared. Analyzing data for Big Foot behavior would only help Big Foot researchers in their research and, possibly, capture efforts.

 

I've stated on other places that I'm a skeptic, not a debunker. And for burden of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be ideal, but I'm willing to go with "clear and convincing evidence"<------subjective, "feelings" and "beliefs" doesn't cut it for neither nor for "preponderance of the evidence".

 

When we tread into "reasonable belief" territory we're waist deep into the subjective arena where a cop can pull you over because he as a "reasonable belief" you are up to no good because you're driving a 1970 Gremlin.

 

As for Garrett's camp, do I think he came across a "torn up camp"? Yes, I do.

 

Do I think he behaved appropriately by stopping to render aid, calling 911 and even video taping it? Yes I do. I think his was an appropriate response, regardless of whether that "torn up camp" was a campsite in an isolated area to whether it was a single vehicle MVA in an inner city or suburb.

 

Do I think he behaved appropriately when he posted his video? Yes I do. Garrett claims that he called the cops and they never showed up to what is potentially a crime scene or a location of a violent event. If the cops were unresponsive, then Garrett has a right as a taxpayer and as a whistle blower to expose the inertia of these public servants.

 

Do I think the cops/NPS officials would be upset with Garrett for posting the video and going public with their lack of response? Yes.

 

Do I think the cops/ NPS officials would retaliate against Garrett for exposing what could be interpreted as their incompetence? Yes.