Guest diana swampbooger Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 BTW, I don't have you on ignore. I have to take care of some business & will talk with you on the return. Thank you for your patience.
Rockape Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 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. Garret wasn't "there" either when it comes to bodies being found. He said himself he deduced that two people were "missing" after supposedly talking to private investigators. So why don't you hold him to the same standards? Anyway, it seems obvious to me since there were no missing persons or lone survivor that Garret is a liar and this entire episode is a hoax, even the torn up campground. 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? You can crop or enlarge that 'til the cows come home but there still are not going to be any bodies there. 1
SWWASAS Posted June 2, 2015 BFF Patron Posted June 2, 2015 I have little interest in this thread but from experience when you bring up what you see or don't see in a picture, in any picture, you need to first compare what you are looking at it with. I have had the case where I released a picture and a couple of people cannot see anything and others could. Not understanding that, I finally asked them what they were looking at the picture with. The answer was oh my IPhone of course which at the time were even smaller than they are now. Or when they wanted to pull out the big guns it was their Ipad which at that time had less than a 10 inch screen. Well when I am looking at something with a 24 inch monitor one can understand why I am seeing something better. Additionally the Ipad seems to not to handle dark poor contrast shade pictures very well. I have an I pad so I can compare a 17 inch Dell Notebook to a Ipad with the same picture any time. Of course my comparison did not go over well with loyal Apple people but some did run their own comparison with the same results. Anyway my point is when someone sees something in a picture and someone does not, take a look at what both are looking at it with before pointing fingers.
Bodhi Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Forgive me, but I think this thread is a nice case study of the problem(s) with the entire "field of research". There is a paucity of evidence and so people inevitably end up arguing over what amounts to campfire stories. Albeit in this case, a campfire story with a accompanying video. There was/were claims made but no supporting materials presented to bolster the claim(s). We can continue to spin around this but no one is going to change anyone else's opinions. So in the end, what are we accomplishing here? Is this a philosophical/rhetorical debate at this point? IMO, this sort of thing occurs with most/all cryptid issues though. 1
Guest diana swampbooger Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 BTW, just looked at the vid again & noticed Garrett switched from color to black & white @ 3:40. Then switched back to color @ 17:10. The pixels look different, kind of blurry maybe. Did you notice the blue thing hanging down off the left side of the X'd tree @ 19:55. Big as my screen is (excellent point, SWWA), looking at this vid of a vid(of a vid ad infinitum), it sure would bring the story into sharper focus with the 'raw' footage.
Rockape Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Forgive me, but I think this thread is a nice case study of the problem(s) with the entire "field of research". There is a paucity of evidence and so people inevitably end up arguing over what amounts to campfire stories. Albeit in this case, a campfire story with a accompanying video. There was/were claims made but no supporting materials presented to bolster the claim(s). We can continue to spin around this but no one is going to change anyone else's opinions. So in the end, what are we accomplishing here? Is this a philosophical/rhetorical debate at this point? IMO, this sort of thing occurs with most/all cryptid issues though. Sorry but...
Bodhi Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 My apologies, as much as I liked the outlaw josey wales I've no idea what you were going for there.
Guest Divergent1 Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) 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. If it's put on a forum for speculation and commentary then I have as much right as anyone else to disagree or agree. 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. You can't witness something that evidently didn't happen. 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. In this case, it is redundant facts that have been talked up one side and down the other. Once again, based on the available evidence in this thread, it didn't happen so what is there really to discuss? 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. Not really. Lack of evidence for an incident is much more telling. Se above bolded. 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 If it happened it shouldn't be necessary to file a FOIA. The ones claiming that the story is true ought to be able to produce documents, which they haven't. OK, your turn now. 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. The only clear video or photo I ever saw was the PGF. Everything else looks like a blob or blurry. I'm pretty sure that has a lot to do with it. If you showed me a pic of a torn up camp, all I'm going to say is "so what?" how will I know sasquatch is responsible or when the pic was taken if there is no time stamp? I can't speak to whether people who photograph sasquatch are hoaxers but they obviously don't have the right speed of film for whatever it is they are trying to capture. If we are untrusting, it's the fault of bigfootery itself since the topic is fraught with shenanigans. My apologies, as much as I liked the outlaw josey wales I've no idea what you were going for there. I'm 72 with a touch of Alzheimers. I was ashamed of that when I first got here. Suffice it to say if I get it, you certainly ought to. Edited June 2, 2015 by Divergent1
Rockape Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 My apologies, as much as I liked the outlaw josey wales I've no idea what you were going for there. Don't lie to my face and expect me to be quiet about it.
Bodhi Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Thanks for the clarification. Not sure how I lied to your face but good enough. Have a great week.
Rockape Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Thanks for the clarification. Not sure how I lied to your face but good enough. Have a great week. I wasn't referring to you. It was in reply to this... We can continue to spin around this but no one is going to change anyone else's opinions. So in the end, what are we accomplishing here? Is this a philosophical/rhetorical debate at this point? This whole story stinks to high heaven and I'll continue to say so.
BigTreeWalker Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 BTW, just looked at the vid again & noticed Garrett switched from color to black & white @ 3:40. Then switched back to color @ 17:10. The pixels look different, kind of blurry maybe. Did you notice the blue thing hanging down off the left side of the X'd tree @ 19:55. Big as my screen is (excellent point, SWWA), looking at this vid of a vid(of a vid ad infinitum), it sure would bring the story into sharper focus with the 'raw' footage. I have no idea what type of video camera Garrett was using. But if it has low-light capabilities it uses IR/black and white in low light. When he managed to get the camera and the flashlight pointed in the same direction it would switch to color. That appears to be what we are seeing.
Guest Posted June 2, 2015 Posted June 2, 2015 Thanks for the clarification. Not sure how I lied to your face but good enough. Have a great week. Bhodi, I am Gumshoeye and I am very pleased to greet you and that you found this thread and welcome your opinions and thoughts. First though, I want to welcome aboard the BFF Forum if I haven’t already done so. It doesn’t matter what station in life a person is in their always more than welcome to be a part, make some friends and share in some interesting conversations.
Recommended Posts