The Government Just Shutdown a Bigfoot Researcher.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Did you read the others? Or did you only read and cherry pick what fits in with your belief system?

How about giving your thoughts on the others?

And also, he said himself in that link you quoted that all of those stories cannot be fabricated.

When you get literally hundreds of reports of the same thing, they all cannot be lies and hoaxes. Even the guy in that link knows that.
So see, you're only reading and hearing what you want to read and hear

a reply to: Bloodydagger

I would have to second your comment. RTSN needs to stop posting for awhile and read the stuff we gave a little bit. There's thousands and thousands of stories like this. A typical debunker's method is to find a fallacy and then try to disprove the entire premise off of it without looking at the other evidence.

RTSN: I read everything people use to refute me otherwise I would be useless debating people without already having knowledge about what they're going to say next.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Did you read the others? Or did you only read and cherry pick what fits in with your belief system?

How about giving your thoughts on the others?

And also, he said himself in that link you quoted that all of those stories cannot be fabricated.

When you get literally hundreds of reports of the same thing, they all cannot be lies and hoaxes. Even the guy in that link knows that.
So see, you're only reading and hearing what you want to read and hear

As I said above, we would need to look at each case on a case by case basis and investigate it fully to be sure. I've already got several articles looking at it from the believer side. Having only one so far against isn't unreasonable, and yes I am reading the others, but I doubt I will waste my time reading all the believer pieces, especially when they are repeating stuff.

Some purely scientific articles would be nice.

I am aware of my cognitive biases, are you? The first step in eliminating bias to be aware of it, and we all have them.

And the first link you posted and then removed makes some pretty damning points. Of course he cannot debunk 100% of them, but it looks like a high percentage, particularly the early accounts can be dismissed on the basis of them being merely a linguistic misunderstanding.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

He didn't say "couldn't debunk" on the statement he made.

He clearly said:

But I don't think that all of those stories were fabricated, either (though some certainly were).

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Did you read the others? Or did you only read and cherry pick what fits in with your belief system?

How about giving your thoughts on the others?

And also, he said himself in that link you quoted that all of those stories cannot be fabricated.

When you get literally hundreds of reports of the same thing, they all cannot be lies and hoaxes. Even the guy in that link knows that.
So see, you're only reading and hearing what you want to read and hear

and yes I am reading the others

Okay, I am looking forward to what you have to say about them, in detail.

Is there a filed missing report for him?

Quick google news search for "Bob Garrett" shows nothing?

Also going to the www.namus.gov... There was no record of him?

The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) is a national centralized repository and resource center for missing persons and unidentified decedent records.

Might be time for the hoax bin?

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

He didn't say "couldn't debunk" on the statement he made.

He clearly said:

But I don't think that all of those stories were fabricated, either (though some certainly were).

There is a subtle difference in language you are not picking up on.

A story does not have to be 'fabricated' for it to be wrong. Fabricated implies a deliberate attempt to mislead. He is pointing out that many are just mistakes made by the linguistic error that other reporters of these stories are not realising.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Or maybe you're just twisting things to suit your belief system.

Also.....

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Did you read the others? Or did you only read and cherry pick what fits in with your belief system?

How about giving your thoughts on the others?

And also, he said himself in that link you quoted that all of those stories cannot be fabricated.

When you get literally hundreds of reports of the same thing, they all cannot be lies and hoaxes. Even the guy in that link knows that.
So see, you're only reading and hearing what you want to read and hear

and yes I am reading the others

Okay, I am looking forward to what you have to say about them, in detail.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Or maybe you're just twisting things to suit your belief system.

You have to be joking. Please read carefully, because I think you are simply not comprehending everything here.

First of all, his meaning is explicit.

These accounts are "real" (in that they exist - they were written), and there are a lot of them. And, therefore, they deserve an explanation. I've spent some time looking at them, and I think they tell a really interesting story that has many parts to it: cultural, historical, archaeological, political, linguistic, etc. Interesting story, yes. But do I think that they actually tell the story of a "race" of ancient giants in North America? No.

But I don't think that all of those stories were fabricated, either (though some certainly were). I think the explanation is more complicated than that.

In other words, he is saying they aren't all deliberate hoaxes. He then goes on to explain that they are a misunderstanding by modern researches who read these accounts at their word and do not understand the changes in language over the years. He presents a pretty conclusive argument that accounts of "rows of double teeth" were describing individuals with a full set of teeth, top and bottom, and that also molar teeth were commonly referred to as "double teeth". Don't believe my interpretation? Then read his own words -

First, the term “double tooth” was used in nineteenth and early twentieth century America as a synonym for a molar or premolar tooth.

As evidence for this he shows us an excerpt from a 1854 dictionary -

These entries from an 1854 dictionary illustrate the synonymy between "molar," "grinder," and "double" teeth:

GRINDER, n. He or that which grinds; an instrument for grinding; one of the double or molar teeth.
MOLAR, a. . . . Having power to grind; used for grinding; as, the molar teeth, i.e. the double teeth.
MOLAR, n. A tooth, generally having a flattened, triturating surface, and situated behind the incisors; a molar tooth.

In addition to ..

An 1898 story describing how potential military recruits were evaluated described how a certain number of “double teeth” were required for enlistment:

(I'll omit it here to conserve space)

His second point is that "double teeth all around" was also a common phrase for worn molar teeth -

Second, the phrase “double teeth all around” was used colloquially to refer to the dentition of living (and dead) individuals with a high degree of anterior tooth wear.

He supports this with two snippets from articles published in 19th century newspapers. (Omitted to conserve space)

And finally -

Third, the phrases "double rows of teeth" and "double row of teeth" were used to describe, simply, the presence of two rows of teeth (an upper and a lower).

Again he supports this statement with a excerpt from The Edgefield Advertiser dated 1840.

His meaning could not be more clear. These accounts were describing either molars, worn down molars or a complete set of teeth both upper and lower using the language of the day. Modern researchers however were unaware of this distinction and foolishly took such accounts at their word, interpreting them to literally mean a double row of teeth.

And finally, accusations from you of all people that I am twisting things to suit my belief system or cherry picking data are incredibly hypocritical considering you were literally sprung in the act of removing a source which did not support your position. You, my friend, have more front than a block of flats.

Also both of you are intent to shift the burden of proof on this back to me. If I can't prove it wrong, it must be true? As I have said that's just an argument from ignorance. Is that really all you have got?

I've said I'll have a look at them and I will in time, but I have actually got other things to do at the moment. They seem on a cursory glance to be the usual creationist nonsense about giants which has been conclusively debunked time and time again.

originally posted by: interupt42
Is there a filed missing report for him?

Quick google news search for "Bob Garrett" shows nothing?

Also going to the www.namus.gov... There was no record of him?

The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) is a national centralized repository and resource center for missing persons and unidentified decedent records.

Might be time for the hoax bin?

Wonder why there are individuals here saying this should be in the hoax bin? There is a lot of great information which can be heard from this man. Mr. Garrett explains in this episode about the harassment his family has gone through for the sake of sharing this information with the public, and why he won't do any more interviews. Frankly I don't blame him. If anything this thread should be backed up and archived..

It seems as if they clipped all 3 of his social media accounts at once the same day he happened to capture some damning footage. This should be a lesson to all serious researchers who happen to get something interesting. Don't talk about it until you have it uploaded and spread around the internet, as "they" are always listening..

56:55 is where Garrett comes on, and I think this is the last interview with him.
www.blogtalkradio.com...

originally posted by: Freezer
Wonder why there are individuals here saying this should be in the hoax bin?

Well, where is any evidence at all he was shutdown by the government?

Any at all?

It seems as if they clipped all 3 of his social media accounts at once the same day he happened to capture some damning footage.

Again, where is the evidence the government did that? Any at all?

a reply to: Bloodydagger

and there in is an insight to the honesty of participents in this thread

pretty sad really - but not unexpected

a reply to: FlySolo

from your link :

After 1995: Whidbey Island, Washington. Rhett Mullis found large mounds on this island in Puget Sound where there is no history of Indian residence. A large pit had been dug out but had not yet been used. There was a “hallway” along a well-used trail and scat was scattered around. The mounds were covered with large hand-sized rocks. Plants had been pulled up and placed on top of the mounds in order to hide them. Possible Bigfoot graveyard. Reported by Rhett Mullis.

and the results of the investigation / dig were ??????????????

further the annecdote is plain factually inacurate :

n August 1848, local Puget Sound Indians force two white settlers, Thomas W. Glasgow and Antonio B. Rabbeson, to abandon farms on Whidbey Island, located in northern Puget Sound. Among the Native peoples are members of the Duwamish, Snoqualmie, and Snohomish tribes. It will be two years before settlers successfully establish themselves in the Puget Sound region away from the protection of the two Hudson's Bay Company farms at Nisqually and Cowlitz and the U.S. settlement in the Tumwater-Olympia area.

source

i see no point in addressing any other annecdotes from that site

a reply to: hellobruce

Broken record much?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Still awaiting you're analysis of the other links.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: hellobruce

Broken record much?

Well, the truth needs repeating - especially as we see some people here ignore it as it does not fit their religion!

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Still awaiting you're analysis of the other links.

Patience, my open minded friend. My home computer's hard drive died and I currently have to make do on iPad and it simply is not the same. I may get the time to look at this tomorrow at work, and then again I may not.

Your reluctance to address any of my counterpoints from my last post and instead concentrate on pressing me for a response to your creationist giants links is also most telling. Rest assured that in the end this bluster will not save you and everyone reading this will only see it as a desperate and transparent attempt to dodge the really quite damming issues with your claims.

In an effort to keep this thread from drifting I think I will create a new thread for my response. This thread has pretty much run it's course as far as the OP's topic is concerned as there has been absolutely no evidence produced to demonstrate the OP's claims of governmental cover up of a Bigfoot researcher. This is really not the place for this "debate" - I'm sure you will agree.

There are some good minds at work trying to figure out this Bigfoot phenomena but this field also has the most bull crap, hoaxes and degenerate theories anywhere. There are hundreds of official Bigfoot societies and researchers embedded within official and educational institutions. No one goes missing when they find hair samples or keep a database of witnesses and sightings. If someone says oh yeah this guy had some fresh Bigfoot evidence but the government killed him to suppress it, I say to you good day.

a reply to: Freezer

Wonder why there are individuals here saying this should be in the hoax bin?

Part of the answer to that is basically from within your own reply.

This should be a lesson to all serious researchers who happen to get something interesting. Don't talk about it until you have it uploaded and spread around the internet, as "they" are always listening..

Exactly, every day there is a so called serious researcher that claims the gov't is taking them down or suppressing their information.

Why do this so called researchers never release the so called dangerous information and evidence till the MAN get to him. Luckily for them they always some how find their way back to spreading their word with a book, interview$, etc..

He obviously has the know how to simply upload information to the internet and it doesn't take a seasoned out of the norm researcher to know what you stated above.

He has not released any factual evidence besides stories, how is this guy any different than other big foot hunters?