Campsite Destroyed

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Question: what did Garrett lie about? Be specific. Any answer like "he lied about the whole thing" is a non-answer and disingenuous.

[Guest]

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.

 

You can crop or enlarge that 'til the cows come home but there still are not going to be any bodies there.

 

If you think I don’t you’re missing the point Rock.  I said very clearly I am not arguing these people (Garrett or Wes of SC) are fine up standing people or that they aren’t con men or fraudsters – the point from the very beginning is that not one of us was there to attest to the fact that they did or did not either I am not going to attach names to them. That's not for me to judge.  

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.

 

That is a very good question that has never been asked or answered BTW. Does anyone know if the equipment was described in the details?  I don’t recall that ever being mentioned unless somebody else has.

[Guest]

Question: what did Garrett lie about? Be specific. Any answer like "he lied about the whole thing" is a non-answer and disingenuous.

 

Good post CS ... This is a bit off topic but these words keep surfacing. I don’t mean to stifle anyone’s imagination but how can anyone call people names like that and not see or know what the accused claim they observed or experienced?

 

Whenever I hear or read a post where somebody claims they know this person is lying or that this event didn’t occur because they are [fill in the word], I remember the first time I heard a college law professor demonstrate the argument in point …  

 

Under cross examination it goes something like this: 

 

Step 1

Nothing left to guessing with a straight forward question beginning to ending, did you observe what the accused claims?  “No, but I know for a fact he is lying and a [you fill in the name] thank you Mr. Smith I didn’t ask for your opinion. Now once again, can you tell the court how it is you know for a fact Mr. Smith didn’t observe what he claims? “Well I heard†…  Mr. Smith I didn’t ask what you heard that’s hearsay, do you understand the question or shall I rephrase the question?

 

Step 2

“Well ah somebody said…† Mr. Smith were you there with the accused on the day and time in question at [fill in the location] where this allegedly occurred? Please speak up so the court can hear you.  “No.† Mr. Smith you say you were not there is that correct? “Yes.†Speak up so the court can hear you please. Is that a yes? But yet somehow you know for a fact the accused didn’t observe what he claims is that correct?

 

Step 3

Can you face the court and please explain how you arrived at a point where you placed yourself in the mind and eyes of the accused on the date and time and location and know what the accused observed? No response …. Your honor I have nothing else. I move to dismiss.  Case Closed.

 

For anyone to suggest they know otherwise is a complete  impossibility as demonstrated above.  Does that make sense to you? I wasn’t there therefore I cannot definitively prove he was truthful or not. Was anyone there as witness?  Nobody I am aware of here will admit to being an eye witness and yet, claim they somehow have this ability allowing them to get in the mind of and eyes and heart of another and know he is lying or see  what he claims to have observed. It's unbelievable and it's wrong, it's simply outrageous.    

 

My point throughout this thread has been if you didn’t witness it yourself, you cannot possibly know what was in the mind, heart and eyes of the person claiming he observed something. You weren’t there. We can debate and we can speculate but in truth we don't know.

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Rockape]

Question: what did Garrett lie about? Be specific. Any answer like "he lied about the whole thing" is a non-answer and disingenuous.

I say he is a bald face liar when he says he was questioned by private investigators. No bodies turning up or missing persons reported so therefore he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims. Therefore it seems obvious he tore the camp up himself then filmed it. He used the convienient "the feds threatened me" bs because he new the guillble of the BF world would then eat it up.

If you think I don’t you’re missing the point Rock.  I said very clearly I am not arguing these people (Garrett or Wes of SC) are fine up standing people or that they aren’t con men or fraudsters – the point from the very beginning is that not one of us was there to attest to the fact that they did or did not either I am not going to attach names to them. That's not for me to judge.  

 

I called him a hoaxer because he is. I have no problem labeling him. This ain't my first rodeo.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Rockape

[Guest]

I say he is a bald face liar when he says he was questioned by private investigators. No bodies turning up or missing persons reported so therefore he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims. Therefore it seems obvious he tore the camp up himself then filmed it. He used the convienient "the feds threatened me" bs because he new the guillble of the BF world would then eat it up.

I called him a hoaxer because he is. I have no problem labeling him. This ain't my first rodeo.

 

Not my first rodeo either I can assure you, but that’s where we differ. You may call it gullibility but I call it reasonableness. I don't know what he used or what he knows but you do, that's where we differ.  He tore up the camp ground himself?  Oh Good Grief Rock ... LOL

Edited June 2, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest diana swampbooger]

I say he is a bald face liar when he says he was questioned by private investigators. No bodies turning up or missing persons reported so therefore he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims. Therefore it seems obvious he tore the camp up himself then filmed it. He used the convienient "the feds threatened me" bs because he new the guillble of the BF world would then eat it up.

I called him a hoaxer because he is. I have no problem labeling him. This ain't my first rodeo.

 

fascinating

[Rockape]

Not my first rodeo either I can assure you, but that’s where we differ. You may call it gullibility but I call it reasonableness. I don't know what he used or what he knows but you do, that's where we differ.  He tore up the camp ground himself?  Oh Good Grief Rock ... LOL

In a court of law if someone lies you are allowed to disregard anything they say. If they lie once, you never know what else they are lying about. So based on that I say he is lying about the entire episode unless he presents something to back up these claims he is making.

 

I will leave open the possibility he actually found a torn up camp, they aren't hard to find, I've seen many of them. Drunken high-schoolers or even frat boys from SFA would be the likely culprit here, not BF. How would a bigfoot wrek that much havoc and not leave a single footprint? Did it sprout wings and hover about? All that is needed here is a little common sense to know what is going on. At best he found a torn up camp and made hoaxer hay while the sun was shining, and at worst he staged the entire episode.

 

Then there is this thing about the government forcing him to shut down his youtube channel. Why would the government worry about a video of what any person (other than those who want to believe anything about BIgfoot) would easily recognize as the site of a drunken party and possibly fight?  And why hasn't the government removed these campsite videos from other places? They are on several other sites in their entirety.

 

Red flags every where with this one, except to those who refuse to see them.

fascinating

Find anymore bodies hanging in those trees? I'm still waiting to see them.

[Bodhi]

Question: what did Garrett lie about? Be specific. Any answer like "he lied about the whole thing" is a non-answer and disingenuous.

I've read this query posed and, to my mind, answered repeatedly. I can answer from my own perspective, you may not be satisfied with my reasoning or my conclusions but I am completely satisfied.

 

• No reports of missing persons from the area.
• No police reports for the park relating to anything which could add substance to the claim.
• No hospital reports for injuries or deaths within the park.
• No reports to news or on social media of any such attack.

A claim of an extraordinary event without substantiation is, for me, insubstantial. It carries no weight.

I am aware that some think very highly of the man making the claim. That is wonderful but without any supporting evidence, it's still only a claim. In the sciences a good reputation/character can be enough for peers to take the time to examine claims made. If those claims are set forth without supporting evidence which withstands the review process you have very little chance of getting a call from Oslo.

 

In fact, due to the absence of these sorts of mundane reports from the (park services,police,health care) the claims seem less credible. State agencies run on paperwork and while one department/agency might plausibly have buried the incident the likelihood of the all doing so seems low. So there is a low probability claim without supporting evidence. If there is a profit motive and the claims are used, even obliquely, to drive traffic to a pay site then it goes from attention seeking to possible flim-flam.

 

There's also known associates. For me, if you choose to associate yourself with people of suspect motives/character I take that into account regarding your own character. Faulty reasoning on my part? possibly.

 

Is it proof of an attempt to manufacture something exciting? It is for me. The motivations seem to be monetary but I doubt there's only one cause,attention seeking seems to likely too.

 

On a quick aside I work in insurance, if you feel that staging a messed up camp is too elaborate to be believable please recheck your first principles. The creativity of humans whilst they are up to no good is stunning.

 

I'm not at all interested in debating where I stand on this. As I mentioned previously, no opinions are going to be swayed at this point. People are entrenched.

[Guest]

There are speculations and debates on this thread and there are different stances and opinions. There is room for everyone.

[Guest Divergent1]

Good post CS ... This is a bit off topic but these words keep surfacing. I don’t mean to stifle anyone’s imagination but how can anyone call people names like that and not see or know what the accused claim they observed or experienced?

 

Whenever I hear or read a post where somebody claims they know this person is lying or that this event didn’t occur because they are [fill in the word], I remember the first time I heard a college law professor demonstrate the argument in point …  

 

Under cross examination it goes something like this: 

 

Step 1

Nothing left to guessing with a straight forward question beginning to ending, did you observe what the accused claims?  “No, but I know for a fact he is lying and a [you fill in the name] thank you Mr. Smith I didn’t ask for your opinion. Now once again, can you tell the court how it is you know for a fact Mr. Smith didn’t observe what he claims? “Well I heard†…  Mr. Smith I didn’t ask what you heard that’s hearsay, do you understand the question or shall I rephrase the question?

 

Step 2

“Well ah somebody said…† Mr. Smith were you there with the accused on the day and time in question at [fill in the location] where this allegedly occurred? Please speak up so the court can hear you.  “No.† Mr. Smith you say you were not there is that correct? “Yes.†Speak up so the court can hear you please. Is that a yes? But yet somehow you know for a fact the accused didn’t observe what he claims is that correct?

 

Step 3

Can you face the court and please explain how you arrived at a point where you placed yourself in the mind and eyes of the accused on the date and time and location and know what the accused observed? No response …. Your honor I have nothing else. I move to dismiss.  Case Closed.

 

For anyone to suggest they know otherwise is a complete  impossibility as demonstrated above.  Does that make sense to you? I wasn’t there therefore I cannot definitively prove he was truthful or not. Was anyone there as witness?  Nobody I am aware of here will admit to being an eye witness and yet, claim they somehow have this ability allowing them to get in the mind of and eyes and heart of another and know he is lying or see  what he claims to have observed. It's unbelievable and it's wrong, it's simply outrageous.    

 

My point throughout this thread has been if you didn’t witness it yourself, you cannot possibly know what was in the mind, heart and eyes of the person claiming he observed something. You weren’t there. We can debate and we can speculate but in truth we don't know.

 

 

 

If a court subpoena'd  that witness then we need to question what our tax dollars are spent on.

I've read this query posed and, to my mind, answered repeatedly. I can answer from my own perspective, you may not be satisfied with my reasoning or my conclusions but I am completely satisfied.

 

• No reports of missing persons from the area.
• No police reports for the park relating to anything which could add substance to the claim.
• No hospital reports for injuries or deaths within the park.
• No reports to news or on social media of any such attack.

A claim of an extraordinary event without substantiation is, for me, insubstantial. It carries no weight.

I am aware that some think very highly of the man making the claim. That is wonderful but without any supporting evidence, it's still only a claim. In the sciences a good reputation/character can be enough for peers to take the time to examine claims made. If those claims are set forth without supporting evidence which withstands the review process you have very little chance of getting a call from Oslo.

 

In fact, due to the absence of these sorts of mundane reports from the (park services,police,health care) the claims seem less credible. State agencies run on paperwork and while one department/agency might plausibly have buried the incident the likelihood of the all doing so seems low. So there is a low probability claim without supporting evidence. If there is a profit motive and the claims are used, even obliquely, to drive traffic to a pay site then it goes from attention seeking to possible flim-flam.

 

There's also known associates. For me, if you choose to associate yourself with people of suspect motives/character I take that into account regarding your own character. Faulty reasoning on my part? possibly.

 

Is it proof of an attempt to manufacture something exciting? It is for me. The motivations seem to be monetary but I doubt there's only one cause,attention seeking seems to likely too.

 

On a quick aside I work in insurance, if you feel that staging a messed up camp is too elaborate to be believable please recheck your first principles. The creativity of humans whilst they are up to no good is stunning.

 

I'm not at all interested in debating where I stand on this. As I mentioned previously, no opinions are going to be swayed at this point. People are entrenched.

Ditto on this! You said it well.

[Guest]

I've read this query posed and, to my mind, answered repeatedly. I can answer from my own perspective, you may not be satisfied with my reasoning or my conclusions but I am completely satisfied.

 

• No reports of missing persons from the area.
• No police reports for the park relating to anything which could add substance to the claim.
• No hospital reports for injuries or deaths within the park.
• No reports to news or on social media of any such attack.

A claim of an extraordinary event without substantiation is, for me, insubstantial. It carries no weight.

I am aware that some think very highly of the man making the claim. That is wonderful but without any supporting evidence, it's still only a claim. In the sciences a good reputation/character can be enough for peers to take the time to examine claims made. If those claims are set forth without supporting evidence which withstands the review process you have very little chance of getting a call from Oslo.

 

In fact, due to the absence of these sorts of mundane reports from the (park services,police,health care) the claims seem less credible. State agencies run on paperwork and while one department/agency might plausibly have buried the incident the likelihood of the all doing so seems low. So there is a low probability claim without supporting evidence. If there is a profit motive and the claims are used, even obliquely, to drive traffic to a pay site then it goes from attention seeking to possible flim-flam.

 

There's also known associates. For me, if you choose to associate yourself with people of suspect motives/character I take that into account regarding your own character. Faulty reasoning on my part? possibly.

 

Is it proof of an attempt to manufacture something exciting? It is for me. The motivations seem to be monetary but I doubt there's only one cause,attention seeking seems to likely too.

 

On a quick aside I work in insurance, if you feel that staging a messed up camp is too elaborate to be believable please recheck your first principles. The creativity of humans whilst they are up to no good is stunning.

 

I'm not at all interested in debating where I stand on this. As I mentioned previously, no opinions are going to be swayed at this point. People are entrenched.

 

Yes we all know how honest and balanced the media is and if there is something about Bigfoot reported it will be reported for laughs and giggles. I worked in law enforcement and I cannot explain to you in a few short words how compartmentalized and territorial agencies really are. Some things are shared while other things are not. There are literally thousands of Bigfoot sightings across the country and by your reasoning police departments would busting at the seams with reports all over the place and that doesn’t reflect my experiences at all.

 

Insurance fraud is where I think you were going in your post. Somebody just suggested that too. I don’t much about the bodies in the tree but if I understood the interview of Mr. Garrett correctly (and I may be incorrect) he mentions large foot tracks so the fraud angle doesn’t quite fit the picture.

 

Relying on my own rote memory though I recall three single instances where I believe law enforcement made off the cuff remarks that were overheard and quoted in newspapers in the few instances where law enforcement and Bigfoot were linked and the third instance was a car to car conversation caught by a citizen listening to his police scanner. None of those remarks substantiate your bulleted points.

 

One of the remarks made were “they were trying to keep it secret,†the other was something to effect “Don’t tell your neighbors we don’t want cause panic,†and the last were two officers discussing a report made a citizen reporting a large upright giant grey creature carrying a deer over its shoulder. The officers discussed an earlier incident where one of their own seen a female creature during a surveillance operation and questioned if it was the same one. The conversation went on about farmer upset over something yanking the head off a trophy buck on his land and wanted to speak with someone.  

 

The third instance I shared here never made it on the nightly news as you and was never reported in a newspaper. If a report was made it was what is often referred to as an internal report not meant for public consumption, meaning it remains in house going no further. You can FOIA, ask, request all you want but it never happened. Get it?

If a court subpoena'd  that witness then we need to question what our tax dollars are spent on.

Ditto on this! You said it well.

 

I would agree with Divergent, see we’re not too far apart.   

[Bodhi]

Yes we all know how honest and balanced the media is and if there is something about Bigfoot reported it will be reported for laughs and giggles. I worked in law enforcement and I cannot explain to you in a few short words how compartmentalized and territorial agencies really are. Some things are shared while other things are not. There are literally thousands of Bigfoot sightings across the country and by your reasoning police departments would busting at the seams with reports all over the place and that doesn’t reflect my experiences at all.

 

Insurance fraud is where I think you were going in your post. Somebody just suggested that too. I don’t much about the bodies in the tree but if I understood the interview of Mr. Garrett correctly (and I may be incorrect) he mentions large foot tracks so the fraud angle doesn’t quite fit the picture.

 

Relying on my own rote memory though I recall three single instances where I believe law enforcement made off the cuff remarks that were overheard and quoted in newspapers in the few instances where law enforcement and Bigfoot were linked and the third instance was a car to car conversation caught by a citizen listening to his police scanner. None of those remarks substantiate your bulleted points.

 

One of the remarks made were “they were trying to keep it secret,†the other was something to effect “Don’t tell your neighbors we don’t want cause panic,†and the last were two officers discussing a report made a citizen reporting a large upright giant grey creature carrying a deer over its shoulder. The officers discussed an earlier incident where one of their own seen a female creature during a surveillance operation and questioned if it was the same one. The conversation went on about farmer upset over something yanking the head off a trophy buck on his land and wanted to speak with someone.  

 

The third instance I shared here never made it on the nightly news as you and was never reported in a newspaper. If a report was made it was what is often referred to as an internal report not meant for public consumption, meaning it remains in house going no further. You can FOIA, ask, request all you want but it never happened. Get it?

 

I would agree with Divergent, see we’re not too far apart.   

 

 

If you wish to believe the tale then, by all means, carry on. Again, no one here is likely to change anyone else's opinion and without corroboration it's all just campfire stories anyway. Let's add that he saw two red glowing "eyes" in the forest that first night but when he played his flashlight out in that direction...the sasquatch cloaked! Who cares, it's just a story. 

Edited June 4, 2015 by chelefoot
2a

[Rockape]

I've read this query posed and, to my mind, answered repeatedly. I can answer from my own perspective, you may not be satisfied with my reasoning or my conclusions but I am completely satisfied.

 

• No reports of missing persons from the area.
• No police reports for the park relating to anything which could add substance to the claim.
• No hospital reports for injuries or deaths within the park.
• No reports to news or on social media of any such attack.

A claim of an extraordinary event without substantiation is, for me, insubstantial. It carries no weight.

I am aware that some think very highly of the man making the claim. That is wonderful but without any supporting evidence, it's still only a claim. In the sciences a good reputation/character can be enough for peers to take the time to examine claims made. If those claims are set forth without supporting evidence which withstands the review process you have very little chance of getting a call from Oslo.

 

In fact, due to the absence of these sorts of mundane reports from the (park services,police,health care) the claims seem less credible. State agencies run on paperwork and while one department/agency might plausibly have buried the incident the likelihood of the all doing so seems low. So there is a low probability claim without supporting evidence. If there is a profit motive and the claims are used, even obliquely, to drive traffic to a pay site then it goes from attention seeking to possible flim-flam.

 

There's also known associates. For me, if you choose to associate yourself with people of suspect motives/character I take that into account regarding your own character. Faulty reasoning on my part? possibly.

 

Is it proof of an attempt to manufacture something exciting? It is for me. The motivations seem to be monetary but I doubt there's only one cause,attention seeking seems to likely too.

 

On a quick aside I work in insurance, if you feel that staging a messed up camp is too elaborate to be believable please recheck your first principles. The creativity of humans whilst they are up to no good is stunning.

 

I'm not at all interested in debating where I stand on this. As I mentioned previously, no opinions are going to be swayed at this point. People are entrenched.

I don't see where you out-right say it, but I assume you don't belive this story from Bob Garrett. If so, might I ask at what point you arrived at that conclusion and how? Was it at least in part from reading through this thread?

 

 I don’t much about the bodies in the tree but if I understood the interview of Mr. Garrett correctly (and I may be incorrect) he mentions large foot tracks so the fraud angle doesn’t quite fit the picture.

 

 

You have to wonder why there are no photos or casts of these supposed large footprints then, don't you?

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I say he is a bald face liar when he says he was questioned by private investigators. No bodies turning up or missing persons reported so therefore he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims. Therefore it seems obvious he tore the camp up himself then filmed it. He used the convienient "the feds threatened me" bs because he new the guillble of the BF world would then eat it up.

I called him a hoaxer because he is. I have no problem labeling him. This ain't my first rodeo.

 

Thanks for the reply. It gives me insight to your thought process.

 

I know you won't agree with me, but I don't think "it seems obvious" that anyone would go to these lengths to in the BF world especially when everything in the BF world is closely scrutinized. That doesn't make sense. And to quote Judge Judith Sheindlin "If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true."

 

I do think Garrett came across a "torn up camp". I do think that after he looked around it, his deduced was a Big Foot did it, based upon his knowledge of the creature. As for the bodies in the trees, as you wrote, Garrett deduced that after he talked with private investigators.

 

A deduction is an opinion based upon available facts and prior experiences. An opinion or deduction can be misguided or incorrect, but not a "lie". If it were, then I can say you're a liar due to your deductions, opinions, and conclusions. (See how it works?)

[Bodhi]

I don't see where you out-right say it, but I assume you don't belive this story from Bob Garrett. If so, might I ask at what point you arrived at that conclusion and how? Was it at least in part from reading through this thread?

 

You have to wonder why there are no photos or casts of these supposed large footprints then, don't you?

I came to the conclusion upon viewing the videos after hearing about the story on S.C. and some other shows (Squatchers Lounge is one that I recall).

I watched the night time and day time footage and came away from that experience feeling very unconvinced.

Then, at a later time I read the report regarding the lack of corroboration, that further inclined me to view it as attention seeking.

The implosion of S.C. and subsequent trip by the host of that show to Tx where he claimed to see werewolf type creatures/prints/etc caused me to associate B.G. with W.G.

I read here about the profit motive and that finalized my impression that this was/is a flim-flam.