Campsite Destroyed

[Rockape]

 

Praising who? I have no idea what you’re trying to say, it doesn’t any sense. 

 

I guess that's what I get for assuming other would recognize word play on a well know Shakespearean quote. I guess ya' gotta play to your audience.

 

 

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him

The supposed bodies in the trees can be seen in post #823 and a better picture of the same 'body' in post #832.

Sure looks like a tree to me. As near as I can tell these were discovered by others watching the video and not mentioned by Garrett.

Umm, yeah, I thought this was something new. Nothing but a tree there.  Sorry folks, no dead bodies in the video. Some people just create BS from wholecloth.

[Guest Divergent1]

Divergent a lot of sites do that. Does that mean they all are a con?

If you claim it as real and you knowingly promote fiction, it's a con. That's the distinction.

[Woodslore]

You are saying that they know this is a con. Can you prove that though. Can you put out proof. You say no report. No report. What if he is telling the truth? Now not saying he is telling the truth but say he is. Than would there be anything. What if SC is being conned? Did you think of that. Again not saying this is what is happening. You say the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Sadly true. Though if you claim falsehood and that they are pocketing money or making a con show proof. Not speculation.

[Guest]

As they say in bigfoot world, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that this event really happened. So far the evidence points to "it didn't happen". Then we have that other matter where they are charging folks to view their site. Bait story + money to gain = con,

Clearly it does not.

 

I beg to differ… burden of proof rests with the accuser who presents their case before the defendant can be found guilty and convicted of anything if memory serves me correctly but then again, what do I know. 

If you claim it as real and you knowingly promote fiction, it's a con. That's the distinction.

 

Is that actually your stated position? Some here have freely stated belief in Bigfoots are fiction by that definition I suppose it includes half the members if I understand your interpretation correctly. Is that what you’re saying Divergent?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest Divergent1]

You are saying that they know this is a con. Can you prove that though. Can you put out proof. You say no report. No report. What if he is telling the truth? Now not saying he is telling the truth but say he is. Than would there be anything. What if SC is being conned? Did you think of that. Again not saying this is what is happening. You say the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Sadly true. Though if you claim falsehood and that they are pocketing money or making a con show proof. Not speculation.

I think you are grasping at straws. There is no way to reconcile the inconsistencies in this story. Garrett claims the story is true despite this fact. They charge money for more of the same at their web site. To increase traffic at the web site one would need to promote interest with a sensational story. What more proof do you need?

I beg to differ… burden of proof rests with the accuser who presents their case before the defendant can be found guilty and convicted of anything if memory serves me correctly but then again, what do I know. 

 

Is that actually your stated position? Some here have freely stated belief in Bigfoots are fiction by that definition I suppose it includes half the members if I understand your interpretation correctly. Is that what you’re saying Divergent?

We've more than established probable cause. Garrett's story doesn't reconcile with the facts. Who is the judge here that decides whether this circumstantial evidence constitutes proof? The court of public opinion? I think we have spoken as far as this specific incident is concerned.

As for your second assertion, go back and reread my statement. The key word is KNOWINGLY.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Divergent, you say you have facts about the Torn up Camp.

 

Did you ever enlarge & crop each frame of min/sec3:21-3:24 of the nighttime Torn Up Camp video that Coffee2go posted on 8 May 2015?

 

Could you kindly share with the rest of the class the FOIA you filed with the feds. You must have had better luck than David Paulides.

[Guest Divergent1]

Nope, that's beyond my technical capabilities. However, it's unnecessary,if photos/video of bigfoot don't amount to much, why should video of a torn up camp mean anything? All the squirming in the world won't do you any good to ameliorate the inconsistencies in the story and the opportunity for gain associated with it.

[Guest Divergent1]

Glad you brought up the report of the torn up camp. The guys ought to have received a yellow copy when they supposedly reported it, so where is it?

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Divergent,

 

Let me get this right. You haven't looked at the particular frames in the vid, you haven't filed for a FOIA, haven't done any research on the story. Just kind of listened to any old hearsay.

 

So, you have absolutely NO FACTS.

 

Trust me, I'll never be squirming in the wind.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$     

 

 

Your turn

[BigTreeWalker]

Divergent, you say you have facts about the Torn up Camp.

Did you ever enlarge & crop each frame of min/sec3:21-3:24 of the nighttime Torn Up Camp video that Coffee2go posted on 8 May 2015?

 

Could you kindly share with the rest of the class the FOIA you filed with the feds. You must have had better luck than David Paulides.

Diana, we've gone around about this before. You keep going back to the same spot in the video. Where you can hardly tell what your looking at. When there is a better view at 3:52 where you can see it's a tree. Are you one of those that I mentioned in the last sentence of the quote below? Enough is enough with the bodies.

The supposed bodies in the trees can be seen in post #823 and a better picture of the same 'body' in post #832.

Sure looks like a tree to me. As near as I can tell these were discovered by others watching the video and not mentioned by Garrett.

[LeafTalker]

"Enough is enough"?

Bit of an overreach there, BigTreeWalker.

[Woodslore]

You raise an interesting point Divergent. If photos and video of Sasquatch don't mean/amount to much. Why is that though. Why don't they. A video or photo of say a cougar in the Eastern USA or Canada means something it stands as a symbol of proof. Granted a cougar is a known animal. Still why is video and photo seen as not amounting to much? Is the person who took it always a hoaxer? I think in our quest for proof of Sasquatch we have become untrusting maybe a little.

[Bonehead74]

After perusing the body of available public photographic evidence, I believe the reason becomes self-evident.

[BigTreeWalker]

"Enough is enough"?

Bit of an overreach there, BigTreeWalker.

It's not when we keep looking at the same piece of evidence and can't seem to address that same piece of evidence in a better light. Especially when we're basing our argument on that piece of evidence.

And I see Diane S has me on ignore!

[Guest]

I think you are grasping at straws. There is no way to reconcile the inconsistencies in this story. Garrett claims the story is true despite this fact. They charge money for more of the same at their web site. To increase traffic at the web site one would need to promote interest with a sensational story. What more proof do you need?

We've more than established probable cause. Garrett's story doesn't reconcile with the facts. Who is the judge here that decides whether this circumstantial evidence constitutes proof? The court of public opinion? I think we have spoken as far as this specific incident is concerned.

As for your second assertion, go back and reread my statement. The key word is KNOWINGLY.

 

Squabbling over what an enterprise charges in fee is an exercise of simple marketing economics and nothing more. It appears the individuals crying the hardest about fees the program charged are the ones who paid something, I did not. Ask yourself what business is it of anyone what somebody does with their earnings? It appears some seem to know more about somebody else’s affairs and less about their own as demonstrated by paying to listen on a radio program they claim duped them.

The entire campground destroyed thread remains a hotly contested subject where there seems to be no logical answers and questions where despite all inconsistencies in the story still hasn’t produce a single eye witness from this forum and yet we want to play act judge and jury over some stranger.

 

Bigfootology is similar in some respects because the topic is so precarious and testaments of will that it’s essentially a game of hide and seek. It’s a thinking person’s game of variables, values moves and counter moves study and analysis clearly and completely illustrating similarities and dissimilarities.

It's not when we keep looking at the same piece of evidence and can't seem to address that same piece of evidence in a better light. Especially when we're basing our argument on that piece of evidence.

And I see Diane S has me on ignore!

 

Hello BTW, I think the frustrating point here is or has been asked several times. I am not arguing these people (Garrett or Wes of SC) are upstanding or that they aren’t con men or fraudsters – the point is that not one of us was there to attest to the fact that:  They did or did not experience what they said did. That’s where the real evidence rests.