Campsite Destroyed

[Rockape]

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

 

My thought process is if you lie about one element of the story you could well be lying about the entire story.

 

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.

 

 

I've said it's possible he did actually come across a torn up camp, but he took the "BF did it" route instead of the one that is much more likely. That shows me his research isn't worth the time of day it takes to hear it.

 

 

As for the bodies in the trees, as you wrote, Garrett deduced that after he talked with private investigators.

 

Actually I'm not sure Garrett ever said that. That seems to come from people here. I'll give him that one if indeed he never made the cliam of bodies in trees. The only thing I know he said along those lines were that "private investigators" questioned him and he concluded from that there were people missing. The only thing I recall him saying along those lines is something to the effect of "they'll probably find the bodies stuffed under logs somewhere"

 

 

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?)

 

Your problem there is, I have the facts on my side. No bodies, no missing persons, no MIB or whatever they were supposed to be. Those black helicopters are a load of BS as well. This is right in my backyard and those black helicopters seem to only be seen by Mr. Garrett. The government supposedly shut down his research and website yet his son's is still going strong, plus these videos are still out there to be seen. Not even a BF footprint. Supposedly called 911 twice but no record of it, or anything else he claimed. There is a stench in the air here, and it's ain't from a Skunk Ape.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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.

 

Thanks for your reply. Just a word of caution....your third reason "No hospital reports for injuries or deaths in the park" is not a very good one. Ever since Bill Clinton signed into law something called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996. There are very strict rules hospitals must follow regarding the release of any medical information. And the government WILL go after them and prosecute them. In the process, the federal investigation doesn't stop with patient privacy violations: the Feds look into every aspect of the hospital looking for other illegal activities. They don't joke around. (as a quick aside, I work in healthcare. So I've seen the how the Feds operate.)

 

As I replied to RockApe, staging a torn up camp in a field that is as highly scrutinized as the BF world doesn't make sense to me because the fraud will be uncovered.  

 

For me, there are holes in the Garrett case, that I can't conveniently plug up with a hoax label. It's not that I believe Garrett, it's just that I don't have enough answers to call him a "liar" or a "hoax" to satisfy me.

[Rockape]

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

OK, that's why I asked the questions. You keep saying this...

 

 

 

no opinions are going to be swayed at this point. People are entrenched.

no one here is likely to change anyone else's opinion

no one is going to change anyone else's opinions

So I'd say that this ongoing conversation has had value. I wouldn't dismiss that others haven't changed their opinion. I remember when this video first came out I thought it was very interesting, but after learning more about it I have decided he should have stopped with the video and just said, "decide for yourself".

 

That's why I say this forum is the best place for the entire story of anything related to BF to get fully sussed out. If not for this thread many might still be inclined to believe Mr. Garret.

 

I will agree that unless something else comes out, it's reached the point of beating a dead horse.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Rockape

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

My thought process is if you lie about one element of the story you could well be lying about the entire story.

 

That's the problem with the "Boy who cried wolf" isn't it? There are two morals to that tale. The most obvious being don't make stuff up. The less obvious being even liars can tell the truth. And it's for the second moral that I scrutinize things more carefully when the claim is as sensational as this one.

 

I've said it's possible he did actually come across a torn up camp, but he took the "BF did it" route instead of the one that is much more likely. That shows me his research isn't worth the time of day it takes to hear it.

 

So, since Garrett's opinion is not the same as your own, he's a fraud and a liar? Applying your rationale to you, then you are a fraud and a liar because your opinion is contrary to Garrett's opinion. Moreover, Garrett had boots on the ground, not you. In other words, your opinion is based upon your opinion and nothing else. So who to believe? Someone who was actually there or someone who wasn't.

 

Actually I'm not sure Garrett ever said that. That seems to come from people here. I'll give him that one if indeed he never made the cliam of bodies in trees. The only thing I know he said along those lines were that "private investigators" questioned him and he concluded from that there were people missing. The only thing I recall him saying along those lines is something to the effect of "they'll probably find the bodies stuffed under logs somewhere"

 

Well, if you aren't sure if Garrett said it and you are only repeating what other people have written here, then why do you take it as "fact"? Additionally why do you take this hearsay as factual enough to call him a liar?

 

What was the context of Garrett's comment that "they'll probably find the bodies stuffed under logs somewhere" Was it within the context of this "torn up camp" or was it within the context of something else?

 

Your problem there is, I have the facts on my side. No bodies, no missing persons, no MIB or whatever they were supposed to be. Those black helicopters are a load of BS as well. This is right in my backyard and those black helicopters seem to only be seen by Mr. Garrett. The government supposedly shut down his research and website yet his son's is still going strong, plus these videos are still out there to be seen. Not even a BF footprint. Supposedly called 911 twice but no record of it, or anything else he claimed. There is a stench in the air here, and it's ain't from a Skunk Ape.

 

No, you don't have "facts". As I've demonstrated, all you have is your opinion based upon your biases. Sorta like Garrett's opinion that a Big Foot tore up the camp and there's a government cover up. So you are as much a liar, fraud and hoaxer as Garrett because you no facts but your deductions, conclusions and opinions.

[Rockape]

 

Moreover, Garrett had boots on the ground, not you.

 

My boots have been on the ground in those woods and I have never seen "Black Helicopters, ever. I've seen plenty of deadfall too that had nothing to do with bigfoot or "something tearing up the woods".

 

 

Well, if you aren't sure if Garrett said it and you are only repeating what other people have written here, then why do you take it as "fact"? Additionally why do you take this hearsay as factual enough to call him a liar?

 

What was the context of Garrett's comment that "they'll probably find the bodies stuffed under logs somewhere" Was it within the context of this "torn up camp" or was it within the context of something else?

First, thanks for assuming I don't do my homework before I open my yap. I've done my due diligence and it's not by merely reading what people on here say.

 

And Bob said that in the SC interview, maybe it would be a good idea if you yourself listen to it if you haven't already. And I cannot possible know everything Bob Garrett has said. He might have said "there were bodies in the trees" somewhere, I don't believe so but it's possible.

 

 

No, you don't have "facts". As I've demonstrated, all you have is your opinion based upon your biases. Sorta like Garrett's opinion that a Big Foot tore up the camp and there's a government cover up. So you are as much a liar, fraud and hoaxer as Garrett because you no facts but your deductions, conclusions and opinions.

 It's a fact there are absolutely no reports from any agency involving this supposed torn up camp or missing persons, that you choose to ignore that doesn't mean it's not fact. I'll also remind you of the rules here, calling other members a liar is a big no-no, so I don't want to see you thrown out due to your over-zealousness in defending the indefensible. Also note I have not called anyone here a liar nor inferred that anyone here is a liar. You are getting a little upset and personal, I suggest you calm down. I would suggest you edit that out quickly while you can and before the mods see it.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Rockape

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

My boots have been on the ground in those woods and I have never seen "Black Helicopters, ever. I've seen plenty of deadfall too that had nothing to do with bigfoot or "something tearing up the woods".

 

Were your boots on the ground----boots on the same ground as Garrett the night he found the "torn up camp"? If not, then sorry,  you did not see what he saw. You can use your experience to form an opinion, but it is your opinion based on your experiences which is a lot different that actually being there at the same time as Garrett.

 

I see this all the time in my day job: doctors and nurses pointing fingers at other doctors and nurses because 'there's no way' a patient would do this or that. If I wasn't there the day a kid got his head stuck in a hospital bed I wouldn't have believed it, but I was there.

 

 

First, thanks for assuming I don't do my homework before I open my yap. I've done my due diligence and it's not by merely reading what people on here say. You are getting a little upset and personal, I suggest you calm down.

 

To quote you on your post dated June 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM "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?" 

 

To quote you on your post dated June 3, 2015 at 03:23 PM "Actually I'm not sure Garrett ever said that. That seems to come from people here. I'll give him that one if indeed he never made the cliam of bodies in trees. The only thing I know he said along those lines were that "private investigators" questioned him and he concluded from that there were people missing. The only thing I recall him saying along those lines is something to the effect of "they'll probably find the bodies stuffed under logs somewhere""

 

So, no, you didn't due your homework.  Moreover, you state that the Garrett not being there was from people here on this forum and now you are stating you are not  merely reading what's here. So what is it? Did you tell the truth in your 03:23 PM post or are you telling the truth now? 

 

If one's " thought process is if you lie about one element of the story you could well be lying about the entire story." , then you are lying  by your own criterion.

 

And Bob said that in the SC interview, maybe it would be a good idea if you yourself listen to it if you haven't already. And I cannot possible know everything Bob Garrett has said. He might have said "there were bodies in the trees" somewhere, I don't believe so but it's possible.

 

So now, you "cannot possible know everyhting Bob Garrett has said" . Yeah, you really did your homework didn't you?

 

 It's a fact there are absolutely no reports from any agency involving this supposed torn up camp or missing persons, that you choose to ignore that doesn't mean it's not fact. I'll also remind you of the rules here, calling other members a liar is a big no-no, so I don't want to see you thrown out due to your over-zealousness in defending the indefensible. Also note I have not called anyone here a liar nor inferred that anyone here is a liar.

 

Please note too, I am applying your rationale and your criterion for calling Bob Garrett a liar to you. As you told Gum, "So why don't you hold him to the same standards?", why should we hold you to different standards? Since this isn't your first rodeo, you should know that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Rockape]

 

 

 

Please note too, I am applying your rationale and your criterion for calling Bob Garrett a liar to you. As you told Gum, "So why don't you hold him to the same standards?", why should we hold you to different standards? Since this isn't your first rodeo, you should know that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You seem to have some personal investment in this and it seems your temper is getting the better of you, so I'm going to do you a favor and leave it alone for now. But don't say I didn't warn you.

[Guest]

If they found bodies in the trees, from investigators, then the area would have been coordined off.. Duh

 

Will Y'all link up Bob Garretts Blogtalk interviews, and we can all go over this again, see what was said, etc.....from the same sources. As this is the endless thread, and the only thing happening.

[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.

 

Chasing Rabitts made a very sound argument applying your logic and rationale in your words, not his …  despite pleas against using words for names like that, I maintained it was unnecessary now and it was at the beginning of this thread. Those pleas went unheeded and I explained how we differ on that point and still do. The Texas incident in my opinion had nothing to do with insurance fraud and nothing to do with a two bit penny and nickel garage staged radio program either that was all smoke in the face window dressing, smoke and mirrors designed to draw attention from the real matter at hand. None of that was issue until the Garrett incident broke news on that radio program less we forget.

 

The question whether or not the Garrett deal actually occurred, I cannot say but given the manner in which all the other distractions found its way into the topic thread makes the matter even more profound and everything to do with who knows what. More to the point, nobody was there as witness and even if  â€œsomebody†here was there, they’re not telling so we can differ and speculate but nobody knows for certain what occurred in spite of no reports or news media.

 

General Guidelines

Rule 2.  Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like “liars†and “idiots†are beyond the pale and will not tolerated here.  

Edited June 3, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Rockape]

Chasing Rabitts made a very sound argument applying your logic and rationale in your words, not his … 

No, CR called me a liar a hoax and a fraud. He attacked me because the Bob garrett story doesn't hold water and he has nothing to close those holes. If this is allowed here in the general forum, I'd like to know when the rules changed.

 

And if you don't want someone to discuss this story, perhaps you shouldn't start a thread about it.

[Guest]

^^^ @ Rockape -  My friend you said yourself you have every right to comment and discuss and post well, the door swings both ways doesn’t it? In so far as the thread goes it’s been very successful thank you! Anyone can post and comment or exchange their opinions but they aren’t always what you prefer them to be if that’s what you’re suggesting. If you would like to start a thread on General Discussion board and need help on a thread just ask I’ll be glad to assist otherwise there is no need to concern yourself over what thread I should or shouldn’t have started, I got it covered but thanks anyways.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[MarkGlasgow]

I'm done with the ifs, buts and maybes.

I've came my logical conclusion on this story sometime ago.

So a slight change of tack here folks...

Now Bob Garrett was a pretty low profile researcher who had a solid reputation among those who knew him and his work. I'm just wondering what happened to him which led him to make the claims that he did?

Was he coerced by the SC guys to come up with something that fitted with murderous, beheading BF agenda?

Or did he come across the wrecked camp and decide to concoct a tale that would gain him primetime on the on what was one of the biggest BF radio shows around and maybe a little notoriety too?

Has anyone heard anything from Garrett recently? Just wondering about the health angle here.

A normal, reasonable, everyday guy gets caught up (unwittingly?) in the hokey SC world of belligerent Bigfoot brutality and suddenly he's claiming Black Helicopter sightings and Feds shutting him down because he 'knows too much'.

If I was a friend of Bob Garrett I'd be hoping my buddy was okay.

Edited June 3, 2015 by MarkGlasgow

[Rockape]

^^^ @ Rockape -  My friend you said yourself you have every right to comment and discuss and post well, the door swings both ways doesn’t it?

No, it doesn't "swing both ways" when it comes to fellow members. In fact if Bob Garrett joins and lets us know I will no longer be allowed to say something like that about him. You and several others need to familiarize yourselves with the rules of debate here, else you'll find yourself on the end of a warning, suspension or ban. I'm actually trying to help here, not just CR but anyone who isn't familar with the rules.

 

 

 

In so far as the thread goes it’s been very successful thank you! Anyone can post and comment or exchange their opinions but they aren’t always what you prefer them to be if that’s what you’re suggesting. If you would like to start a thread on General Discussion board and need help on a thread just ask I’ll be glad to assist otherwise there is no need to concern yourself over what thread I should or shouldn’t have started, I got it covered but thanks anyways.

 

You are the one trying to control the discussion. I can comment all I like in this thread as long as I stay in the guidlines of the rules. Sorry if many of you don't like what I say but you will not shout me down nor run me off by calling me names.

[MarkGlasgow]

In so far as the thread goes it’s been very successful thank you!

Maybe not for all folks Gum. It's certainly highlighted high levels of naivety on the part of some of those involved.

Gullibility aren't treasured attributes around these parts. Threads like this can unfortunately define some members.

[Guest Divergent1]

 

 

No, you don't have "facts". As I've demonstrated, all you have is your opinion based upon your biases. Sorta like Garrett's opinion that a Big Foot tore up the camp and there's a government cover up. So you are as much a liar, fraud and hoaxer as Garrett because you no facts but your deductions, conclusions and opinions.

Missing documentation is a fact. There should be some if what happened really happened.