The Government Just Shutdown a Bigfoot Researcher.

If anyone is interested, there is a lot more radio interviews with bob garrett explaining his many encounters, including the following day after the torn up camp incident. His accounts are pretty interesting, and he seems to really know his stuff about sasquatch in my opinion.

www.blogtalkradio.com...

My opinion is this is a PR stunt. This is how the UFO reserachers / Bigfood, Mickey Mouse researchers stir up the hype train.

originally posted by: Freezer
If anyone is interested, there is a lot more radio interviews with bob garrett explaining his many encounters, including the following day after the torn up camp incident. His accounts are pretty interesting, and he seems to really know his stuff about sasquatch in my opinion.

www.blogtalkradio.com...

Alllllll these "encounters" and yet not one hair, not one picture, not one dung pile, no video. Just a bunch of "Guys!!! Guess what I saw!!! I totally saw a Wookie!!! Seriously!!!" No thanks.

a reply to: jaffo

I'm curious. What would you say to someone who has 30 years experience in the woods and saw one up close? Someone by all definitions who seems genuine and trustworthy. Someone who is intelligent, professional and has no interest in seeking attention. Someone who can explain in great detail the anatomical characteristics of a female squatch and describe the events at their camp.

In case it was missed on the previous page.

Let's try not to slide too far off of the specific thread topic .



thanks

a reply to: Jbird

Well, as others have observed - what evidence is there that the government attempted to shut down this "researcher" ? This whole thing just reeks of being a publicity stunt.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Jbird

Well, as others have observed - what evidence is there that the government attempted to shut down this "researcher" ? This whole thing just reeks of being a publicity stunt.

About as much evidence that Bigfoot exists - none at all!

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: jaffo

I'm curious. What would you say to someone who has 30 years experience in the woods and saw one up close? Someone by all definitions who seems genuine and trustworthy. Someone who is intelligent, professional and has no interest in seeking attention. Someone who can explain in great detail the anatomical characteristics of a female squatch and describe the events at their camp.

I'd take their word for it, personally. I'd trust the word of a Park Ranger who has 30 years experience in the woods over someone who takes the deadpanned default stance of "it cannot exist, where is the proof?". The main reason for this is that I don't have a reason to doubt what he says. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I don't automatically assume someone is a liar or a hoaxer just because they have a spectacular encounter/story to tell. Who am I to judge? If you don't know someone from Adam and have never walked a mile in their shoes, then automatically "assuming" something negative about them is asinine.

Also, when staunch skeptics and staunch believers are in the same room together, its a recipe for disaster. So the arguing that is happening in this thread (and other threads at times) is not surprising. Neither side of the coin will make the other side believe, no matter what. Why? Because their minds are already made up.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

I'm always open to changing my position and re-examining my thinking in light of good evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Bloodydagger

I'm always open to changing my position and re-examining my thinking in light of good evidence to the contrary.

Thing about it is, the waters are too muddy. What I mean is, that yes, while there have been known hoaxes within the Bigfoot research world, there have also been some very interesting findings over the years. So what I am getting at, is that if a legit real photo or video of Sasquatch was recorded these days, it would automatically be passed off as a hoax. I call it the Cry Wolf syndrome. So the real deal could bite us on the butt one day and we'd never know it because the default position within the skeptic world is to automatically assume hoax. Its unfortunate.

Same thing with UFO sightings.

The waters are too muddy and I have serious doubts that the real deal would change your mind at this point.

This is why you hear so many skeptics within the Scientific community say that a body is pretty much the only real proof to bring forward. How can you examine hair or scat samples when we have no Sasquatch DNA in our databases to compare it to? So if a real Sasquatch hair was discovered, we don't have an example to say hey, this is a real Sasquatch hair, nice find!

This is also why you see a lot skeptics break off and actually get out into the field to prove things for themselves and not rely on others. They want to separate the wheat from the chaff and find out for themselves without all of the murky waters involved within the subject.

A photo, DNA sample or a video is a not real evidence to the staunch skeptic. Real skeptics want the proof for themselves. Maybe you're a skeptic that would like to believe and the only way to accomplish that is to do the legwork for yourself out in the field.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

All you would have to do is just listen to a few people on Bob Garret's radio show for starters. Some of them sound oh I don't know, in their 60's? True, anecdotes are not evidence but there comes a time when you have to rely on your own bs meter. You know, medical technology today hasn't been around since the dawn of civilization I need not remind you. It's not the holy grail to solve all conspiracies. Just some good instincts with some wisdom and common sense.

When listening to some of these people its not hard to find them believable. Can't all be liars, scoundrels or stupid. That's a probability I can't accept. Some? yes definitely. All? No way.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Why is it that in all these years of people searching far and wide a single carcass has never been obtained and made available for scientific scrutiny? Is that really so much to ask? Every other recognised species has left a body somewhere.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

This site should answer your question.
robertlindsay.wordpress.com...

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Lets assume for a moment that Sasquatch is real. Since that is the case, sightings seem to be extremely rare if you base it around eyewitness reports. So lets go ahead and assume that there are not many Sasquatches around based on that.

Then lets assume that Sasquatch is an intelligent being (some reports say that it is) - So perhaps Sasquatch buries their dead or crawls into some deep cavern or cave in some isolated remote place to die where humans don't venture into. Not to mention, Sasquatch has done a great job at remaining undetected all of this time (outside of the rare occasion when a sighting happens) - This means that Sasquatch is the real master of the woods and knows its domain inside and out a lot better than a 30 year Park Ranger veteran does for example. If a Sasquatch does not want to be seen, it wont be seen. The chance encounters that a sighting happens has been compared to winning the lottery.

And mother nature has her ways of hiding evidence if its not found in a certain amount of time. Lets face it, there are parts of the woods in the Pacific Northwest and up into British Columbia that man has not walked on for years (or maybe has never walked on)

There are a lot of variables at work here.

You often times hear a lot of believers within the Bigfoot community say that the only way to bring a Sasquatch corpse in, would be to shoot and kill one. Otherwise, finding a Sasquatch corpse would be like finding a needle in a needle stack.

a reply to: FlySolo

I'll digest that long post over time. However, I can already see some problems.

The accounts of hunters shooting a bigfoot, leaving the area and coming back only to find the carcass removed presumably by another bigfoot seem awfully convenient and I'm immediately suspicious that these are a post hoc rationalization in an attempt to cover themselves.

The reports of 8 foot or 9 foot tall skeletons are themselves easily explained by soil drift which is a well known phenomenon. Any skeleton dead for some time will eventually become dislocated and the bones will drift apart through the natural movement of the soil. People unfamiliar with this phenomenon then will dig up the skeleton and measure it from head to toe, coming up with an exagerrated result. This actually happens a lot, and particularly happened a lot in earlier times.

The 'government coverup' idea is the product of a conspiracy minded mind-set, and is naturally prone to all the problems that go along with that - any lack of evidence is seen by believers as evidence for the conspiracy, any evidence against the conspiracy was "planted" and therefore evidence for the conspiracy in their eyes.

Overall these all seem like rationalizations for the lack of hard evidence.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

How do you explain the double rows of teeth reported to be found on these giant skeletons over the years? That is a common theme with "Giant Skeletons" - Double rows of teeth.

One or two maybe a birth defect, sure. But not when its reported every single time a supposed giant skeleton is discovered somewhere. Not to mention, the double rows of teeth go all the way around. Its not just a doubled tooth here or there, its the entire set of teeth that is double rowed.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

How do you explain the double rows of teeth reported to be found on these giant skeletons over the years? That is a common theme with "Giant Skeletons" - Double rows of teeth.

One or two maybe a birth defect, sure. But not when its reported every single time a supposed giant skeleton is discovered somewhere. Not to mention, the double rows of teeth go all the way around. Its not just a doubled tooth here or there, its the entire set of teeth that is double rowed.

Before we do anything we need to see if the report is even true (remember the Null Hypothesis?). I think it's likely many of these accounts are either misreported or outright hoaxes.

Also I'd like to find an alternative viewpoint. There is sure to be some review of these accounts which is critical or outright debunking. I'd like to take in those points of view and see if they are reasonable criticisms.

If at all possible I'd like to examine the evidence myself, so I would want to go back to the source of the information to see what evidence there is. If you really want to find the truth of the matter, this is what you will need to do.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Read This
Give This A Read Too

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Rationalizations? All 50 pages of stories are rationalizations of what exactly? I want to make sure I understand your mind set here. The rationalization is -They didn't see a squatch so they lie about the location and it being "missing" rather than admit they were mistaken? Is this the rationalization your proposing? Please correct me if not.

I'm immediately suspicious that these are a post hoc rationalization in an attempt to cover themselves.

Cover themselves how? I'm really confused trying to follow your line of thinking. Cover that they did or didn't shoot a squatch/bear illegally?

The reports of 8 foot or 9 foot tall skeletons are themselves easily explained by soil drift which is a well known phenomenon. Any skeleton dead for some time will eventually become dislocated and the bones will drift apart through the natural movement of the soil

Are you saying that a shin bone found 2 feet away from a femur bone is sometimes overlooked and calculated to the overall height of a skeleton? C'mon really? You're putting me on. Show me a link to this "phenomenon" and anyone stupid enough to not know bones fit into sockets.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Give This A Read
And This
Also Read This

You are aware that you just posted a link debunking the claims of 'double rows of teeth' ? (The first link you posted)

ETA - LOL! You quickly removed that one didn't you. Too slow old boy, too slow..

And he makes some interesting points -

First, the term “double tooth” was used in nineteenth and early twentieth century America as a synonym for a molar or premolar tooth. It was not a mysterious term, appearing in dictionaries and works of science and literature in Europe and the Americas from at least the 1500s until the early 1900s. A distinction between “single teeth” (incisors and canines) and “double teeth” (molars and premolars) seems to have been based on both function and morphology. In functional terms, “double teeth” are for grinding. The “double” of “double tooth” refers to the appearance of premolars and molars as being composed of multiple "single" teeth. "Double teeth" are larger than "single teeth" and have multiple roots.

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. Anterior “single teeth” (canines and incisors) looked like “double teeth” (molars) when the cusps were removed through wear. In other words, a mouth full of heavily worn teeth was a mouth in which all teeth were used for grinding and, therefore, in which all teeth had the wear characteristic of "double" teeth. This was a common phrase: nineteenth century newspapers contain numerous accounts of living individuals described as having "double teeth all around."

This article debunks the notion that it is possible to have a mouth full of molars:

"The lecturer alluded to the idea, held by some, that certain people or animals had double teeth all the way round the jaw. This is not correct, the appearance being due to the wearing down of the teeth till they present facets similar to those of small double teeth, but they are single teeth and there not on record a single instance where a jaw has been found filled with double teeth, each with two fangs or roots." (Burlington Weekly Free Press, March 30, 1877).

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). These phases were commonly applied to both living individuals and non-giant skeletons.

I can collect and present an immense amount of contextual/historical data that will demonstrate that, in the large majority of cases, the writers of nineteenth and twentieth century accounts of "giant" skeletons were not intending to imply that those skeletons had dental features unlike those of other humans, such as two sets of teeth arranged in concentric rows. They were simply describing characteristics of the teeth that were interesting or somewhat noteworthy: full sets of teeth (i.e., "double rows of teeth") would have been something to remark upon in the mid 1800s, as would a uniformly high degree of tooth wear (i.e., "double teeth all around").

The term "double tooth" and its associated phrases appear to have fallen out of common use early in the twentieth century (I'm still compiling dictionary data). I think that it was probably combined changes in diet, dental health, and dental medicine that caused the folk classification of "single" and "double" teeth to become less useful (more on that in the paper). For whatever reason, those "double" terms went away. When we see the phrase "double teeth all around" now, just 100 years later, it is foreign to us and seems to imply something bizarre. It did not when it was used. The peculiarity of "double teeth" can largely be explained as a mirage created by a linguistic change.

I challenge those who believe in the giant story to sift through your accounts of "double teeth" with the historic contexts of the terms/phrases I have discussed here in mind. And search for those terms outside of your giant skeleton accounts. Get a feel for how the terms were used in the common language of nineteenth century America and then do an honest evaluation and see if you really want to base a theory about an ancient "race" of giants on them. I don't think I would.

This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.