Torn Up Tent: Bob Garrett Interview

[WSA]

^^^What I call the "tree manipulation" evidence has always fascinated me. I've become aware, more and more, of things like this that used to not even register on my radar. (We've got an on-going discussion of this on another thread too) 

 

But, as much as I'd like to pretend I knew what/who broke those trees off, I would even have less of a chance of knowing than you would. Sure, I could give you all the usual natural phenomena that you've already probably considered and discarded. 

 

What fascinates me is not so much the "who or what", but the "why" of it.  If it is just a natural process (although unknown) the "why" is not an issue. But...

[Guest]

Sometimes the tree breaks point in a certain direction. So, did they 'point' inland? In the same direction? Could mean a 'Pod' of 3 BF in the area. That they are close to the river is a bit strange, but maybe they use the water for locomotion, and 3 trees are easier to 'spot' than just the one, to get out at the right place.

 

-Texas, or Southern squatches, are more prone to violence (it seems).

 

But good point, who are the 'missing hikers'. And why wasn't the area coordinated off permanently? They do that in Colorado when the local BF group puts out too much information online. AREA CLOSED - (thanks for telling us).

Edited June 12, 2014 by Wag

[Guest]

WSA: Thanks for pointing out the tree manipulation thread. It's very interesting.

Wag: I'm going to head back out there Sunday to take some photos. I'll check the direction of the tree breaks. Thanks for pointing me in this direction. No pun intended. Lol! Will let you know what I find.

If I remember right from the interview, there are 2 missing campers and 1 that made it back to their truck who is not commenting on what happened. Not sure on this, someone else might be able to verify this.

By the way, I'm new to this, what is odd about the tree breaks being close to the river? Thanks in advance.

[norseman]

An animal that can't get classified, does not going around tearing up tents.

If BF made a habit out of threatening people, or children it would have been killed and hung on a wall years ago.

Depends.......

Animals are like humans with individual dispositions. There is always that one, and there is a difference between being shot and recovering the body.

Anyhow I want to know what happened to the campers !?

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

An animal that can't get classified, does not going around tearing up tents.

 

If BF made a habit out of threatening people, or children it would have been killed and hung on a wall years ago.

I completely understand where you are coming from, but I also want to say that it may not be that simple. If sasquatch truly are intelligent and crafty enough to elude us so often, then it is possible that even if someone definitively knew a sasquatch was to blame for some incident, it would not do them any good. I can think of a couple reports where groups went out hunting a bigfoot after some type of incident, but they never found the animal. IF these stories are real. I seem to recall an older account, probably 19th century, of miners forming a posse after one of their own was killed. Interesting story, whether real or not.  Both the miner story and the story this thread is based on.

 

If some of these accounts of children who have gone missing truly are the work of bigfoot, it suggests that not only are bigfoot hanging around campsites and families in the woods, but that they are not willing to grab a child and run off with it unless they know they are in the clear and will not be seen. That takes intelligence. I am not saying bigfoot is definitely abducting or murdering children or people in general, but it is something that is possible. And let's say a guy saw a bigfoot grab his child and run off. Who would believe him? The first instinct of authorities would be to blame the guy in some way I'm sure. He could attempt to search for the bigfoot and his child but it is not likely to get him anywhere.

 

As far as the story in question we obviously do not know what occurred. I think that finding barefoot impressions is the one piece of evidence that very well could point to a bigfoot, but does not necessarily mean bigfoot. It is true that most people do not walk around barefooted in the woods, but it is not impossible. And someone who is crazy would likely be more inclined to do something that makes no sense. So if such a person was willing to do what happened in this case, then I do not find it out of the question that they might have been barefooted. They could have been wearing one of those tall hats that the cat in the hat wore, or whoever it was. The striped one I think. My point is that crazy people are not rational. I'm not crazy but I would totally wear one of those hats by the way. Just saying.

 

So jumping to the bigfoot conclusion, even if bigfoot was truly the culprit, is not the best move. So take what is known. If nobody saw a bigfoot then the chances of bigfoot being responsible go down. If one definitively knows that a bigfoot was around at the time, the chances of it being responsible are increased. Just like if you see a shady character hanging around somewhere before something bad happens, a character that is totally out of place, then there is a good chance there is some connection. But most noises, or something like bare footprints, do not necessarily point to bigfoot. Not everyone can identify all known animal noises, and some animals make noises that others of their species wouldn't make. I've seen dogs on the internet making sounds I've never heard a dog make in my life. I have almost two week old kittens and they hiss at me when I check on them, but it doesn't sound like a cat hissing. My point is that some things can be deceiving. Throw drugs into the mix and what makes no sense to us could have made perfect sense to the person responsible. Throw some type of illegal substance into the mix with a bigfoot though, and I wouldn't want to see the outcome.

[southernyahoo]

Depends.......

Animals are like humans with individual dispositions. There is always that one, and there is a difference between being shot and recovering the body.

Anyhow I want to know what happened to the campers !?

 

You can listen to Bob tell it at BF Evidence Sasquatch Chronicles blogtalk radio.

 

At 52 min. 

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/06/listen-to-bob-garrett-on-sasquatch.html

[Guest]

MIB: If it's a methhead with big feet running around out there, there needs to be a warning sign put up about them to. Lol!

As for the average size footprints, I don't remember the size of the footprints being mentioned on the tore up tent incident. I do remember Bob mentioning the foot sizes of approx. 13" and 20" on the charging incident at the same location. Refresh my memory, what were the sizes at the tore up tent incident?

 

Good post Stillwater! The discussion went from a torn up tent and campsite to meth users with abnormal feet, a snake, a delirious skunk wandering around, a drunk, a wind storm, even a bill collector, any one of those ideas would cause good folk to rip their own sleeping bags and tents to flee leaving behind their property. I certainly don’t know the answer but what’s evident is that something occurred and nobody knows what.    

[Guest]

Gumshoeye: Alway nice to hear from you my friend. The last update that I know of is Bob Garrett is having ongoing massive problems with the Feds since posting this. Bob's a good stand up guy. My opinion he's gotten to close to the truth over the years and the Feds are not happy with him at all. Take care Gumshoeye.

[Guest]

Much appreciated Stillwater keep posting ….

[Lake County Bigfooot]

It is funny that Wes of Sasquatch Chronicles said he would not comment further on the Bob Garrett incident till he can 

substantiate things a bit more, well I guess he slipped on Coast to Coast. Passing such a story on while not producing

anything to substantiate the facts is a bit irresponsible in IMHO. I have told him as much on his website, but the fact that

he cannot let it go tells me he saw something. My question is, if the Government really wanted to cover this stuff up would

Wes Germer from Sasquatch Chronicles be privy to that information, or would encrypted e-mails even be out there to be 

found, seriously doubt it. If anything I would suggest they leaked the information on purpose or staged the whole scene,

don't you find it interesting that it just happened to be right where Bob Garrett goes to research, strange coincidence. Maybe

Bob did sign an NDA, but the facts that are out there are probably skewed in some fashion, it is certainly not as simple as

the story seems. Maybe they were just sending out a warning shot to researchers in this field and set Bob up to do that, or 

am I just giving the intelligence agencies way too much credit?

[Guest]

I think this event is going to continue to have us evaluating it and wondering about it and thinking about it for a long time.

The idea of the NDA in this case is another topic that has all sorts of questions associated with it.

[Guest Suesquach]

It was also mentioned on Sasquatch Chronicles that there was a 3rd camper who witnessed the other two get killed and he ran for his life but is too distraught to speak about it. Who knows if the true story will ever come to light.

[Cisco]

 

It is funny that Wes of Sasquatch Chronicles said he would not comment further on the Bob Garrett incident till he can 

substantiate things a bit more, well I guess he slipped on Coast to Coast. Passing such a story on while not producing

anything to substantiate the facts is a bit irresponsible in IMHO. I have told him as much on his website, but the fact that

he cannot let it go tells me he saw something. My question is, if the Government really wanted to cover this stuff up would

Wes Germer from Sasquatch Chronicles be privy to that information, or would encrypted e-mails even be out there to be 

found, seriously doubt it. If anything I would suggest they leaked the information on purpose or staged the whole scene,

don't you find it interesting that it just happened to be right where Bob Garrett goes to research, strange coincidence. Maybe

Bob did sign an NDA, but the facts that are out there are probably skewed in some fashion, it is certainly not as simple as

the story seems. Maybe they were just sending out a warning shot to researchers in this field and set Bob up to do that, or 

am I just giving the intelligence agencies way too much credit?

 

 

 

Gumshoeye: Great work finding this older thread. If anything, it makes me question the findings a little more than I had before. That being said, we do discuss Bigfoot in this forum so, that alone, makes many things possible.

 

I can't help feeling like Bob Garret tends to add more drama and excitement to things that may not be related to any kind of Bigfoot activity. Also, the claim of government intervention does not sit well with me. This just ads to the "mystery" and there's no basis or proof. In fact, I notice a distinct lack of detail for any of the claims or evidence...

 

Of all the BF researchers; why would the government pick on Bob Garret? I'd think they'would focus on censoring somebody like David Paulides since he's put together some detailed and well thought out information, regarding potential harm from BF. Why would the government censor Bob Garret's Youtube page and website, but then allow him to comment in other forums, blogs and radio shows? The government "becoming involved" with Bob Garret, just creates more interest in his story. Its more realistic to believe the governmemt would simply ignore the claims and the story would lose momentum and die.

 

I just don't see any evidence that links the campsites with Bigfoot violence. However, I do see the potential for Bob Garret to drum up interest and attention from the BF community.

 

I think it's fun to discuss these things and I'm sure there are and have been conflicts between BF and man. I can't say with any certainty the events described by Bob Garret, did not happen. I may have been open to a BF camp site attack but the government interference claim was too much for me to swallow.

[Guest]

Lake County Bigfoot: Sasquatch Chronicles lost it's credibility with me when they started charging for content. I remember when they started up, they were the one's that said to beware of people making money off of this subject. Also I never bought into their mysterious Mr. Black. Sounds like hogwash to me. With that being said, there are very few people in the BF community I have faith in. Bob Garrett is one of them though. The shame is, I don't think we'll ever know the complete story.

[Guest]

Gumshoeye;  Thank you sir for bumping this thread. You certainly have a knack for digging up the poignant older threads and it's much appreciated. This thread is actually where I first learned of Garrett and the campsite. 

 

Suesquach;  Are you referring to a Sasquatch Chronicles episode or to the Coast to Coast episode with Wes as guest the other night?  I can't recall hearing of this 3rd 'victim/ survivor' until he mentioned it the other night. Certainly, I may not be recalling correctly as it's been what? 8 months or so now since this whole thing started up.

 

Stillwater;  I could not agree more. Sas chronicles has been a great show, I've been a fan. I as well was quite discouraged when they began charging for 'additional content' (IMHO there's nothing extra they just break their show in half now) but what REALLY rubbed me the wrong way about it;  " I remember when they started up, they were the one's that said to beware of people making money off of this subject."  As you said perfectly right there. THAT is what rubs me wrong. It is what it is though I suppose. Money makes the world go around.

 

The coast to coast this week with Wes as the guest for the first half was the first time I heard a few things about this incident. As mentioned above I do not recall hearing of the survivor before. Nor do I recall the story of Garrett and another researcher having 3 shots fired in their general direction, I believe in the same location AFTER the incident in question. Since he's been on Sas Chron a few times since then I'd think some of that would have been mentioned.  When this thread first popped up and the 2 vids in question were available to watch, I recall being quite intrigued and then found both vids to be rather unimpressive. The night video I couldn't see a **** thing. I recall as well much speculation as to what may have transpired yet no camera shot saying 'look at this!' 

   

The day video if I recall correctly things had been 'cleaned up'.   What exactly I could never tell as you really couldn't see anything in the first video to make the comparison. I sure as hell don't recall "those two bodies we found last night"  or "after I called the cops yesterday".  I really would assume most humans aren't going to see someone's decapitated body in the woods and not have some serious disconnect going on for a few. Bob seemed pretty composed and not exactly affected in the day video. Maybe I shouldn't assume.

 

The timeline for most of this is something I've been having a tough time wrapping my head around as well. Approx 8 months back a pretty decently known and well enough respected researcher posts a video of a torn up camp. Then a daytime vid of said camp and some of the 'clean-up' effort that went on after it's discovery. Made the rounds on the podcasts and here we are today. Bob's the martyr for all things bigfoot and big brother is taking him to task. SOMETHING went on in between.  It really, again IMHO, could not have been these vids that brought him the ire of the spooks as there is NOTHING in them. No more, no less than any other Bigfoot video out there on youtube.

 

With the frequency of appearances on Sas Chronicles my assumption was that Garrett was friendly with Wes, Woody & Will. My opinion on that after the Coast to Coast with Wes has gotten a bit cloudy and I question, how familiar are they with each other?  Per Wes, Bob was close-lipped and wasn't going to share. SO it seems an 'insider' with the DOI, but not really DOI, just an IT sort of fella, intercepted e-mails between DOI in Washington and DOI in Texas. These e-mails go into detail over who got killed, where, who the survivor is. Who Bob is. Who they're going to 'pin' the whole thing on.   Okay.  THEN Wes goes on to reveal another 'insider', this one a 'military' insider.  He passes along the info to Wes about the 3 shots being fired and urges him to find out from Bob about it, then Wes could know this guy was telling the truth.  So, Wes calls up Bob, who has been on his show many times mind you, and says "Hey, on so&so date you and so&so had shots fired in your direction in this locale"  It seems this gains Bob's trust(!!??) and then he 'confirms' all that Wes has learned through his anonymous sources. If Wes were my 'buddy' I'd be a little disgruntled he's pokin' around digging up info on me and second guessing me and if the goverment stuff is REAL, putting my life, at least freedom on the line.

 

 So Bob himself has said actually very little on this matter. As best I can tell. Most of the 'hype' around the situation is being perpetuated by a podcast with anonymous secret insiders. I am offering no opinion on what is fact and not.  This is a rabbit hole. If EVER there was one. Not surprising as it is commonplace in all things conspiracy minded. Additionally, and hopefully somebody can help me out here, somewhat recently on one of the Sas Chron episodes I believe it was a caller asked or said they had heard Bob tracked Bigfoot FOR the Government. I know Bob wasn't on that episode but if I recall correctly whoever responded to the caller didn't exactly negate that. I hate not having the exact info to quote and I apologize but it just popped into my head and when hearing it, it put a whole different spin on it to me should Garrett be a Government employee.

 

My opinions: Bob is indeed doing work for the government and made a mistake and is being scolded. or maybe.  Bob is legit and there is a smear campaign to kill his credibility. or maybe. Everybody is having a laugh at the Squatchers' expense and everything about the story is BS.  All I know is much like Bindernagel's opinion on PGF, I am going to put all of this on the shelf and move forward. There is nothing concrete here and it appears thinner as time passes.