Campsite Destroyed

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I'd just like you to show me where I have lied, since you are the one making accusations about other members and calling them names.

 

Again, please show me where I have quarrelled with or bullied anyone in this thread.

 

 

 

This is standard operating procedure here...

 

Check out my posts from yesterday where I included your quotes, date and time. Read your posts to Gum. It's all there. Like I've written, your criteria for determining a liar, your criteria. If you don't fulfill that criteria, no worries.

 

If this is the SOP for this forum,

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative."

 

Good! This TOS specifically allows people to over-analyze, which means any discussion about any possibilities that this torn up camp isn't a hoax or why Bob Garrett might not be a hoaxer/liar/fraud is completely allowed under the TOS. This TOS allows us to be skeptical (ask questions) of those who believe this is a hoax. Moreover, this TOS acknowledges that "we accept very little at face value", which discourages accepting this is a hoax just because other posters are of the opinion it is a hoax. So you rock, Rock, for posting this TOS.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

CR, Rockape is beginning the name calling/disinformation/smearing of Garrett that is typical low level SOP.

Can't wait for the ramp up. Seen it on other forums.

I've received a few 1111111111 text messages.

Let the games begin, DOI/DHS/etc etc etc wannabes.

*eats popcorn*

[Guest]

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.

 

Perhaps our willingness to gloss over uncomfortable experiences and perceptions from people of different backgrounds without engaging says more about us than about them.  If you read the entire thread from beginning you would have noticed that I took issue on the theme of attaching names based on personal feelings or intuition.

 

To suggest gullibility or naiveté simply means sitting around like a potting a plant just following the herd, I don’t do that and never have and never will. If I can't lead then I'll step aside and let somebody else do the heavy lifting but I don't follow unless I feel its safe and prudent. What I did allude to earlier in the thread that whole scenario beginning with Garrett then as it bled into Wes and then into SC that it reminded me of the same strategies used in military psi-ops. Nothing gullible or naïve about that unless you experienced it yourself and can share a different experience with it.  

 

My steadfast position has not been about gullibility or naiveté as you say it has always been there is no possible way to know for certain what that man claims unless there is way to get into his mind and step inside in his eyes how can you or anyone else know what somebody observed?  

Edited June 4, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Rockape]

 

Check out my posts from yesterday where I included your quotes, date and time.

Yes, that's the post where I realized you had lost your temper and were emotionally invested in this. Your post was nothing but a bunch of nonsense, but I'll try to straighten you out on it now even though you are clearly still angry.

 

 

 

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.

 

First, you are quoting me about two different things, which if you had bothered to read my replies without being so angry you surely would have understood.

 

 

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?" 

 

That is in reference to Garrett never having seen any bodies during the taping of both his campsite videos. So no, he wasn't there when these alleged bodies were supposedly found and removed. He himself said he deduced there were people missing from questions these supposed private investigators asked him.

 

 

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""

That is in reference to the supposed bodies some here have claimed are in the night video. I have never seen where Garrett said he saw bodies that night or there are bodies visable in the video. That's what I mean by "it seemed to come from people here", some here are the ones making that claim.  I was actually defending Garrett on that point but your anger did not allow you to see it.

 

 

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?

 

I made it clear I heard Bob Garrett say that himself on the SC episode. You can ignore that if you wish. If I haven't listened to what Garrett said how would I know about the supposed "boneyard"? No one has mentioned that here, not since I joined the conversation at least.

 

 

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

 

No, I don't live in Bob Garrett's hip pocket so I don't know everything he says. He could have claimed there were bodies hanging in those trees, but he hasn't said it in anything I have listened to. If he did indeed say there were bodies in the trees that night, perhaps I missed it or perhaps someone who knows will show me where he said it.

 

 

Good! This TOS specifically allows people to over-analyze, which means any discussion about any possibilities that this torn up camp isn't a hoax or why Bob Garrett might not be a hoaxer/liar/fraud is completely allowed under the TOS.

 

You need to remind yourself of that because I'm not the one trying to bully and intimidate someone of an opposing opinion into silence, that would be you.

 

 

This TOS allows us to be skeptical (ask questions) of those who believe this is a hoax. Moreover, this TOS acknowledges that "we accept very little at face value", which discourages accepting this is a hoax just because other posters are of the opinion it is a hoax. So you rock, Rock, for posting this TOS.

 

I have answered every question asked of me. I'm sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but that's the way it works.

 

I would like some answers to questions I have asked, like how a Bigfoot could tear up an entire camp, the woods surrounding it, drag off several people but not leave a single footprint.

Let the games begin, DOI/DHS/etc etc etc wannabes.

 

More name calling I see.

[Guest]

Don't lie to my face and expect me to be quiet about it.

 

How about if we just stick to the Bob Garrett story, the torn up tent?

[Rockape]

How about if we just stick to the Bob Garrett story, the torn up tent?

So what does that mean? That I can't say I think Garrett is full of it? Because that's what I'm talking about when I say it. Only positive thoughts allowed here?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Rockape

[Guest]

So what does that mean? That I can't say I think Garrett is full of it? Because that's what I'm talking about when I say it. Only positive thoughts allowed here?

 

Opposing viewpoints run contrary to Bigfootology especially something as controversial as Campsite Destroyed don’t they?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Rockape]

Not sure I understand what you are saying but, yes, they do. And your point is?

Edited June 4, 2015 by Rockape

[Bodhi]

How about if we just stick to the Bob Garrett story, the torn up tent?

I will agree he filmed a messed up tent. Somewhat melted perhaps but mostly it just looked as though the poles were down.

 

But yeah, he and his son saw a tent, it's not all that impressive of a story is it?

 

That's  p r o b a b l y  all that happened, assuming they didn't stage the whole thing....

[Guest]

You know, South Texas has like, TONS of serial killers in general, doesn;t it? Its like a missing persons nightmare in some areas, the seedy refinery towns and stuff.

 

http://www.texasobserver.org/highway-injustice/

 

What’s more, the 38 unsolved highway serial murders the FBI has identified in Texas could be a drop in the ocean compared to the actual figure.

 

Texas has a real dark side it seems...

Edited June 4, 2015 by Wag

[Bonehead74]

CR, Rockape is beginning the name calling/disinformation/smearing of Garrett that is typical low level SOP.

Can't wait for the ramp up. Seen it on other forums.

I've received a few 1111111111 text messages.

Let the games begin, DOI/DHS/etc etc etc wannabes.

*eats popcorn*

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Hey Rockape, remember the part where Garrett said he & Travis were interrogated for 7 hours & Brandon(who wasn't there that night) was interrogated for 8 hours. That's where Bob found out about the 2nd guy & found out the 3rd guy got himself to the hospital. Remember the part where the 3rd guy was incoherent for 2 days constantly saying "monsters, monsters, monsters'.

 

The Feds were going to attempt to pin the 2 deaths on incoherent guy.

 

Nice, huh?

[MarkGlasgow]

remember the part where Garrett said....

This is the CRUX of the problem Diana. I personally have difficulty in believing much Bob says in relation to this story.

Gum is correct in some ways when he says that without being in Garrett's shoes no one can say for sure what happened that day or what Bob's true motives were when reporting on what he found. All very noble of course but not sure I'll be adopting this principle into my everyday life. Our natural BS filter has never been more vital to us right now. The world is rife with scammers and fraudsters who would do their worst if you let them.

It seems CR that our criterion for sniffing out a hoax is pretty similar. It's just that having taken in all the available information, I have simply come to a very different conclusion than you.

Still feel that this one is pretty much dead in the water. Not sure where any genuine developments are going to come from? As much as I enjoy a good joust, I'm not sure that another 40 pages of ill-will and mudslinging will be of value to anyone.

Oh and the part about the poor guy who apparently couldn't say anything else but 'Monsters, Monsters, Monsters...etc' tickled me immensely. Sheer B movie hokum at its finest.

Edited June 4, 2015 by MarkGlasgow

[SWWASAS]

Reading this thread reminds me of a not particularly popular person who had a great description of some things that may be pertinent here.     Donald Rumsfelt, former Sec of Defense, had a category of things he called "not knowable".    Like him or not, and politics aside,  he was or is an intelligent man (not sure if the is even still alive).    Many things in the BF field of study are not knowable and probably never will.   The primary category of these not knowable things are witness reports and accounts.     We listen, and are forced to make personal judgments based on our own impressions, life experience, and personal history and try to determine if we believe a particular witness or account of an event.     If there is simply not enough information to determine with any probability if something happened, then that situation is simply not knowable.    No amount of arguing or name calling can fill in missing information that is simply not available that makes the event knowable.     Maybe we need accept that and to lighten up a bit?.   

[Rockape]

Hey Rockape, remember the part where Garrett said he & Travis were interrogated for 7 hours & Brandon(who wasn't there that night) was interrogated for 8 hours. That's where Bob found out about the 2nd guy & found out the 3rd guy got himself to the hospital. Remember the part where the 3rd guy was incoherent for 2 days constantly saying "monsters, monsters, monsters'.

 

The Feds were going to attempt to pin the 2 deaths on incoherent guy.

 

Nice, huh?

Yeah, I remember Bob saying he was interrogated for several hours. He said by "Private Investigators" who have no right to hold anyone for interrogation. Sorry but I don't believe that either.

 

I have no doubt this torn up camp was there, whether he did it or it was an actual find, but any interrogation he suffered would have been by Park Police who were probably looking to pin a littering citation on him since they suspected this was all his stuff. If that was the case I'm sure they had reason to believe he was responsible for it.

 

You see, I have faith in LEO's, especially locals, they are not going to let a dangerous situation go hidden from the public. If they do indeed find all these human bones scattered about as Garrett claims, they would be all over it. They would not be intimidated by the Feds.

 

LEO's do need to get involved here though. Garrett is making claims of human remains being found all around this area. Someone needs to check this out and I'm guessing if one listens to these boneyard tales by Garrett they will be all over it. If Garrett is concerned of a cover-up, there is this thing called the news media that have brought down presidents and toppled governments who try to hide the truth. All he has to do is show these bones to one and they'll be all over it.

 

Things like this is why I don't believe a word Garrett says. Calling him a liar might be harsh, but the story has gotten too far fetched for me to believe anything else. It's my opinion Garrett has done what so many other researchers have, they get frustrated by years of not finding solid evidence and start making stuff up. They get caught up in their own stories and can't find a way out, so fall further down the rabbit hole.

 

There is a thread here on this story in another section from back when the videos first came out. Not many there believed him at the time either. I've also seen several researchers who I do trust say this one needs to be given a wide berth. They stop short of saying he is making things up, but I don't. I'm sorry but I just don't believe any of it at this point.

 

Which is too bad, because I thought this was a very good video back when it first came out, even though I thought at the time it is just a case of a fight or rampant party. I did however give him the benefit of the doubt until he started making grand claims. You see, growing up here in East Texas, there aren't a lot of things for a tenager to do since it is a long way to a big city. We used to go to the woods and raise cain ourselves. I'm sure we left some campgrounds looking like that several times. There is no explaining a bunch of drunken teenagers.

 

So that's my opinion of it now, it was either a drunken party/fight or Garrett made up the entire story. If someone wants to think otherwise, that's fine with me.

    We listen, and are forced to make personal judgments based on our own impressions, life experience, and personal history and try to determine if we believe a particular witness or account of an event.     If there is simply not enough information to determine with any probability if something happened, then that situation is simply not knowable.  

I disagree about this case being not knowable. No footprints, no reports even of his 911 calls. One thing around here, if you call 911, they come running. That I know. If there was one single thing to back up what has been claimed, I would be in agreement, but there isn't.