Campsite Destroyed

[Guest]

I once had a newer high rise security basket weave holster ripped like a banana peel by an angry naked muscle man after beating his girlfriend bloody during his arrest. I never thought it was possible and never it seen it since. It was his attempt to use my weapon on me. My point is either to illustrate incredible strength or wild imagination to do some things one person alleges. A man says his leather horse tact, meaning leather saddle and stirrups and associated leather hardware, was ripped to shreds and his was camp destroyed. If you ever seen a thick sun heat hardened leather saddle you’ll probably shake your head and wonder how does that occur.    

 

Date: October 15, 1991

 

Place: Oklahoma

 

Paraphrased Summary: Horse riding cowboy camping over night was shaken awake by his screaming horse. He smelled and heard something crashing in the woods. Not sticking around to see if it was a hostile charge or a loving caring approach, he mounts and flees leaving everything behind. I interpret that to mean he rode bare back. The next day he returns to find his “camp was destroyed including my saddle which had been ripped to shreds and the tree busted to pieces.† Read the report in its entirety at GCBRO.

 

http://www.gcbro.com/TXcherokee0012.html

Edited January 29, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Airdale]

I think Airdale has made an excellent point. Perhaps it's not that the government is trying to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, on a grand scale, but rather they are unwilling to confirm the existence of Bigfoot and discourage any talk or comments from public officials, because it's not been proven to exist.

 

Using an example from Airdale's post; if a forest ranger or rangers, observe Bigfoot in the area, would they be encouraged to speak openly about this sighting? The answer is no; they would have to keep quiet because they would be perceived or judged as being crazy.

 

I'm a partner in a privately owned company and even though my partners and associates know that I have an interest in Bigfoot, they also know I would not discuss this interest in front of clients. Simply because there's a stigma that's associated with people that believe in Bigfoot. The government is the same as the company I work for. They don't want the stigma of being associated with this subject matter as it does not "officially" exist.

 

This holds true for many other things, aside from BF, such as UFO's, ghosts, etc.  I may not believe in ghosts but who am I to judge?

 

Imagine how the world would look upon us if the FBI announced that it believed in the existence of ghosts, trolls and Chupacabras? I'm sure some special interest groups would think this was great but most people would instantly lose confidence in the FBI. Bigfoot, from the public's perspective is really no different.

 

The bottom line is that government employees, agencies or officials cannot discuss topics such as Bigfoot without leaving themselves open to ridicule or scorn. They have to be seen as above board in all ways. Until BF is acknowledged by the government, he won't officially exist. I have no doubt that cops, rangers, soldiers and all sorts of government officials have seen these creatures. However, the agencies they work for will not officially acknowledge these sightings for the same reason I stated earlier

 

Therefor, the government is not trying to cover up the existence of Bigfoot, they are just stating that he has not been proven to exist. All public servants will "officially" have to follow the same position. There's a significant difference, in my mind, between this and a cover up.

 

Again, there's no logical reason, I'm aware of, for the government actively trying to stop us from proving the existence of Bigfoot. Otherwise our ability to hunt, hike and camp in national forests would be restricted. TV shows like finding Bigfoot, would not exist. This website would not exist.

 

This is really a matter of official denial and not a policy of trying to keep us from knowing. After all, it really is a bit late for a cover up; don't you think?

 

Whenever I hear "cover up" as a reason for why proof cannot be produced or made available, as it pertains to Bigfoot, I immediately question the claim or testimony.

 

Lumping Sasquatch in with Ghosts, Chupacabras, UFO's,etc., is apples and oranges. They either know about Sasquatch' existence and have proof in which case they don't have to worry about ridicule as they can present said proof, or they know of Sasquatch' existence but don't have proof in which case they should be allocating whatever resources are necessary to obtain proof in the interests of public safety.

 

A privately or publicly held company has a moral and legal duty to inform the public if their action or inaction has caused a hazard. Our government and its agents, whether federal, state or local, have a constitutional responsibility to inform the public of potential threats to safety whether from a hazardous chemical spill, an imminent hurricane or a large, powerful and intelligent wide ranging primate on our public lands that on occasion may decide to harm someone. 

[MarkGlasgow]

I addressed similar questions in posts # 126 and 127 of this tread, including the Paulides question.  Read those.

Lol. Obviously not well enough for my liking JJ.

[Guest]

so I have given further thought to this since my response very early in this thread. I still stand by that response, but I can see another path...Another angle to add to this train of thought. Something I experienced when working with the fed.gov but at a much lower level..

A theory explained with a "story"

In 19 whatever a low- level G-4 seasonal employee who cleans campgrounds finds an X in the brush while doing his work. He knows that there has been talk about X at the office, he's heard the bigwigs.

He mentions it to his direct supervisor. His direct sup tells him to keep quiet about it, they don't want the paperwork and the problems associated and his summer job will be gone if "they find out about it".

He keeps quiet.

A couple years later the summer employee is now the supervisor, his summer employee comes to him and says 2 campers says X was maybe at the campground and he knows X is a problem. He tells the summer guy to ignore it. He goes out after dark and removes any sign of X and tells summer guy to call him if it comes up again.

There are more reports of X in the forest, but no one wants the paperwork so the local level supervisors are squashing it, which is easy at their level. They work together. Their butts are on the line, life is easier without X in their already busy lives.

With more people in the forest there are more incidents where someone says they saw X. Reports are squashed, denied, whatever.

But it gets too big.

The local level supervisors meet, trying to decide how to tell regional manager about X. Regional manager came from another area, has no clue of X history in the area. Local supes decide to use their juice to just keep a lid on it. No paper is cut, they have the tools  to squash evidence if it comes along. They'll cut trees, they'll close trails, they'll do what it takes, but no X. Regional gets a informal, off-the-record briefing, orally, from his closest buddy amongst the supes. He doesn't want to know, he is headed to the major district. He explains the concept of plausible deniability. He creates an "informal arrangement"

He goes to the major district, and sees to it one of his inner circle  gets promoted to Regional.

His buddy, to be exact.

The reports of X now go directly to the buddy. That one time summer employee who 20 years ago first reported X.. His former boss runs the show, he knows this thing has gone on for 20 years now and if the story of X gets out it isn't gonna take him down and everyone in his chain of command.

All this takes 20-25 years. You now have a long history of covering up a local problem that has the ability to create serious problems for career federal bureaucrats that simply ain't gonna let it happen. Entrenched people in a place to control information that might mess with their gig.

And over the years, it just gets bigger and bigger.

And we arrive here.

 

This is how I see a government cover up like this being born. It isn't the only possibility, but I would be just about willing to guarantee you that it it is one possibility.

[Guest]

so I have given further thought to this since my response very early in this thread. I still stand by that response, but I can see another path...Another angle to add to this train of thought. Something I experienced when working with the fed.gov but at a much lower level..

A theory explained with a "story"

In 19 whatever a low- level G-4 seasonal employee who cleans campgrounds finds an X in the brush while doing his work. He knows that there has been talk about X at the office, he's heard the bigwigs.

He mentions it to his direct supervisor. His direct sup tells him to keep quiet about it, they don't want the paperwork and the problems associated and his summer job will be gone if "they find out about it".

He keeps quiet.

A couple years later the summer employee is now the supervisor, his summer employee comes to him and says 2 campers says X was maybe at the campground and he knows X is a problem. He tells the summer guy to ignore it. He goes out after dark and removes any sign of X and tells summer guy to call him if it comes up again.

There are more reports of X in the forest, but no one wants the paperwork so the local level supervisors are squashing it, which is easy at their level. They work together. Their butts are on the line, life is easier without X in their already busy lives.

With more people in the forest there are more incidents where someone says they saw X. Reports are squashed, denied, whatever.

But it gets too big.

The local level supervisors meet, trying to decide how to tell regional manager about X. Regional manager came from another area, has no clue of X history in the area. Local supes decide to use their juice to just keep a lid on it. No paper is cut, they have the tools  to squash evidence if it comes along. They'll cut trees, they'll close trails, they'll do what it takes, but no X. Regional gets a informal, off-the-record briefing, orally, from his closest buddy amongst the supes. He doesn't want to know, he is headed to the major district. He explains the concept of plausible deniability. He creates an "informal arrangement"

He goes to the major district, and sees to it one of his inner circle  gets promoted to Regional.

His buddy, to be exact.

The reports of X now go directly to the buddy. That one time summer employee who 20 years ago first reported X.. His former boss runs the show, he knows this thing has gone on for 20 years now and if the story of X gets out it isn't gonna take him down and everyone in his chain of command.

All this takes 20-25 years. You now have a long history of covering up a local problem that has the ability to create serious problems for career federal bureaucrats that simply ain't gonna let it happen. Entrenched people in a place to control information that might mess with their gig.

And over the years, it just gets bigger and bigger.

And we arrive here.

 

This is how I see a government cover up like this being born. It isn't the only possibility, but I would be just about willing to guarantee you that it it is one possibility.

 

Yes I understand it, so thanks for laying it out and unpacking it like that. I also shared a similar background as you know… It makes sense.

 

[jayjeti]

Lol. Obviously not well enough for my liking JJ.

 

Fair enough.

[Airdale]

That's a very plausible scenario Northfork. I've looked at this from a lot of different angles but the paperwork aspect never made it on to my radar screen; combining human nature and the government penchant for everything in triplicate certainly fits the bill. Whatever the back story, this pot is getting pretty seriously stirred up. Hope good people don't get burned if/when it boils over.

[Guest]

Yeah, I wasn’t thinking about Ghosts, Chupacabras, UFO's when I started this thread, I’ll defer to the experts on that. I prefer to stay on more familiar grounds with destroyed camp grounds.  LOL

Edited January 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

Date: 1998 December

 

Place: Mt. Rainier, Washington

 

Paraphrased Summary: Two soldiers hunting on a military reservation near Mt. Rainier, Washington set up camp at a place of their choosing and moved out for a few hours of hunting. Upon returning they found their campsite destroyed. Their tent was ripped to shreds and their food gone. Concerned but unwilling to give up, they went to town restocked their food supply and returned. While inspecting the damage they noticed huge foot tracks around their truck and upon closer inspection noticed it had pushed 10 feet from its original parking spot. Read the report in its entirety at GCBRO

 

http://gcbro.com/WApie001.htm

[guyzonthropus]

One might do well to consider other possibilities of what may be afoot..... Who's to say that our government is the entity that is ultimately responsible for this apparent restriction of information? They could easily be acting as middlemen for those of greater influence, after all, corperate multinationalism pretty much undermined the notion of sovereign states decades ago. The visible agencies are merely following orders. The question is whose?

On the other hand, its also a possible context that the whole matter of sasquatch leads to a much grander issue or more fundamentally significant truth of which the general public has "yet to be informed"

Or maybe these sasquatch are actually keepers at a zoo, where the "animals"(ie we humans) do best when they dont see those who observe them. On the other hand, they could be the orderlies in the ward that houses those who have yet to develop an awareness that would liberate them from this one specific dimension.

Or maybe the government works FOR the sasquatch....

As for the moral responsibility to disclose knowledge of dangerous elements to the population at risk ascribed to the government, i too believe it should be so, but i see precious little evidence of it, unless motivated by greed, ulterior agendas and/or crisis management.

Edited February 2, 2015 by guyzonthropus

[Guest]

I found an abandoned camp a few years back, could not infer anything particular from it though. The tent had fell over and got rainwater on top, which I think made it likely it was there a week since last rain. The cooler and a chair were still there, didn't look inside the tent for sleeping bags. There were the ashes of a campfire. Nothing looked violently disarrayed, but stuff wasn't standing neat and tidy if you know what I mean. 

 

Was a bit of a puzzler, was in rather small neck of woodland that connects 2 larger ones, both of which rate about 70% on Flash's squatchiness scale, as in, there's a fair bit of stuff you could attribute to squatch if it wasn't in ramble range of kids and has general human hikey/walkey activity. You get to, "Yes four farm lads could have moved that trunk..." etcetera. At most squoptimistic, there's a family group in there every couple of weeks, at medium squoptimism, they come through spring and fall, at night. Deer, berries, wild cherries would be attraction. Never found good prints in there, it's mostly either leaf litter or hardbaked mud. The muddy spots can be avoided. Have had "sign", i.e. big enough disturbances, far enough apart, but that's as far as that goes. I think if it were 50 miles away from the nearest road, you could bump the score 20%, the "outlier" stuff is hard to pick out from the human.

 

Anyway, could have been teens took the camping stuff there, and abandoned it for a barred owl hoot, or coyote calls, could have been a homeless scallywag who got arrested for shoplifting so didn't get back to it. 

[Guest]

Or maybe these sasquatch are actually keepers at a zoo, where the "animals"(ie we humans) do best when they dont see those who observe them. On the other hand, they could be the orderlies in the ward that houses those who have yet to develop an awareness that would liberate them from this one specific dimension.

 

I like the sentries for UFO bases theory myself 

[SWWASAS]

Are BF the Watchers who are here to watch our development but are forbidden to interfere in our development? They certainly watch but interact very little with humans.

Edited February 2, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[jayjeti]

I think they watch out for us due to seeing what we do with guns, realizing man is the apex predator.  Particularly early settlers and into the early 20th century man was not shy about shooting any animal.   Maybe staying hidden and observing us is out of fear.

[guyzonthropus]

If these creatures have half of the abilities attributed to them, i really doubt they view humans as the apex predator, especially within their own territories, even as heavily armed as we've become. Sure, most probably see humans with guns as a threat and potential danger, but in any dense forest they have obvious advantages that would enable them to manage that danger, or eliminate it should they choose.

Size, strength, intelligence, speed, and stealth make for a formidable combination, not to mention telepathy, invisibility, infrasonics, dimensional shifting, and a phone that calls UFO's. And while we dont see 'em much at malls, when most people are within the home turf of the big guys, its by their good graces not their fear of us......maybe.....

Edited February 2, 2015 by guyzonthropus