Campsite Destroyed

[Bonehead74]

So remind me again how many confirmed attacks we know have been committed by these bad egg sasquatch?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

I’m throwing a wide net, but help me understand this if you can. If you always considered Bigfoot dangerous, how is it that you don’t believe them to be blood thirsty killers?  Isn’t that giving voice to two opposing views? If they are dangerous and menacing does it matter if they are blood thirsty and menacing or opportunistic and menacing killers? Is there a difference?  - Just Asking ....

 

 

 

There is a VERY big difference between being dangerous and a blood thirsty killer here Gum.  And to be completely fair to the conversation, you interjected the word "menacing" into this, thrice in one post. 

 

Not sure how much time you have spent in the woods or outdoors.  Bears are dangerous, yes.  Not all are menacing.  Most bears leave humans alone, turn and run.  I took photos of a bear I found in a den, he wasn't happy about it, but was not menacing, thankfully .  Heck, deer are dangerous.  My cousin was attacked by a doe once, but I think few people would agree that deer are menacing.  Badgers are nasty critters, but if they see you they will turn and run or dig a hole if they can - and they can bury themselves in a hole faster than you think.  I wouldn't consider them particularly menacing, until you are trapping gophers in a field of alfalfa that is knee high and stick your hand down a gopher hole that has a badger waiting on the other end.  Then you have a problem.

 

So, yes, there is a difference, a big difference.  Interjecting words like "menacing" only supports your agenda.

So remind me again how many confirmed attacks we know have been committed by these bad egg sasquatch?

 

Um, none I think.  That would preclude knowing bad egg sasquatch exist, correct?

[Bonehead74]

That was kinda my point, although approached obliquely.

[beerhunter]

Good link Bonehead, it was entertaining to listen to, thanks.

[Guest]

There is a VERY big difference between being dangerous and a blood thirsty killer here Gum.  And to be completely fair to the conversation, you interjected the word "menacing" into this, thrice in one post. 

 

Not sure how much time you have spent in the woods or outdoors.  Bears are dangerous, yes.  Not all are menacing.  Most bears leave humans alone, turn and run.  I took photos of a bear I found in a den, he wasn't happy about it, but was not menacing, thankfully .  Heck, deer are dangerous.  My cousin was attacked by a doe once, but I think few people would agree that deer are menacing.  Badgers are nasty critters, but if they see you they will turn and run or dig a hole if they can - and they can bury themselves in a hole faster than you think.  I wouldn't consider them particularly menacing, until you are trapping gophers in a field of alfalfa that is knee high and stick your hand down a gopher hole that has a badger waiting on the other end.  Then you have a problem.

 

So, yes, there is a difference, a big difference.  Interjecting words like "menacing" only supports your agenda.

 

Um, none I think.  That would preclude knowing bad egg sasquatch exist, correct?

 

Thanks Nod4Eight, It’s all relative. Did you know that my post was in reply to someone's state position? In his post - not mine, he used the words "Dangerous" and "Blood thirsty killers," not me. 

 

Menace is a synonym of Dangerous unless I am wrong. My point was how can someone believe Bigfoot are dangerous by stated position and end another stated position by declaring another view that they are not blood thirsty killers?  If something is dangerous and the word blood thirsty killer is used to describe danger, menace or dangerous isn’t that equivocation?   

 

So, tell me again what agenda it is that I am suppose to be supporting?  

[Bonehead74]

Good link Bonehead, it was entertaining to listen to, thanks.

I'm glad you got something from it, Beerhunter!

[jayjeti]

Thanks Nod4Eight, It’s all relative. Did you know that my post was in reply to someone's state position? In his post - not mine, he used the words "Dangerous" and "Blood thirsty killers," not me. 

 

Menace is a synonym of Dangerous unless I am wrong. My point was how can someone believe Bigfoot are dangerous by stated position and end another stated position by declaring another view that they are not blood thirsty killers?  If something is dangerous and the word blood thirsty killer is used to describe danger, menace or dangerous isn’t that equivocation?   

 

So, tell me again what agenda it is that I am suppose to be supporting?  

 

Gumshoeye, I think I understand your point to a degree, and sometimes people's agenda is to make them out as either more peace loving or potentially vicious.  Its how one uses the word dangerous.   A mine field is dangerous to trek across.  Its also dangerous to drive on the freeway.  Each has different degrees of danger.  Some sasquatches may be more unlikely to be dangerous, while others have more potential to be dangerous.  Statistically among humans 90% of all crimes are committed by 2% of the population, while the rest of us commit the other 10%.  So, that's about 2 out of a hundred that are more inclined commit crimes.  Who knows how sasquatch society fares in that regard?

Edited February 6, 2015 by jayjeti

[Guest]

Thanks Nod4Eight, It’s all relative. Did you know that my post was in reply to someone's state position? In his post - not mine, he used the words "Dangerous" and "Blood thirsty killers," not me. 

 

Menace is a synonym of Dangerous unless I am wrong. My point was how can someone believe Bigfoot are dangerous by stated position and end another stated position by declaring another view that they are not blood thirsty killers?  If something is dangerous and the word blood thirsty killer is used to describe danger, menace or dangerous isn’t that equivocation?   

 

So, tell me again what agenda it is that I am suppose to be supporting?  

You seem to enjoy supporting the "blood thirsty killer" agenda.  Or at least the they are real agenda.  You spend a lot of time here, have you had an experience?

 

Dangerous and menacing are NOT the same, I'm sure you can think back on times being a gumshoe and figure that out.  If not, hit me up on PM, I can give you plenty more examples.  The only way I can figure someone seeing that is someone who is scared of everything.  I don't picture you like that. 

 

You ever figure out those genetics?  It was a pretty simple example i gave?  You get it now?  Why you question me on that?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Nod4Eight

[Guest]

Yah well, don't go bush thinking you're the squatch whisperer or you'll end up like Timothy Treadwell.

[Guest]

Gumshoeye, I think I understand your point to a degree, and sometimes people's agenda is to make them out as either more peace loving or potentially vicious.  Its how one uses the word dangerous.   A mine field is dangerous to trek across.  Its also dangerous to drive on the freeway.  Each has different degrees of danger.  Some sasquatches may be more unlikely to be dangerous, while others have more potential to be dangerous.  Statistically among humans 90% of all crimes are committed by 2% of the population, while the rest of us commit the other 10%.  So, that's about 2 out of a hundred that are more inclined commit crimes.  Who knows how sasquatch society fares in that regard?

 

Thank you for your support! It was the point to my post. Dangerous or danger is synonymous with menace nevertheless, its obvious something else is afoot here.  

[Airdale]

That is a great link Bonehead, thanks. Regarding confirmed Sasquatch kills, it's unlikely we would ever hear of them unless unequivocal evidence remained.

 

As far as the "torn up camp" incident, if memory serves there was an empty booze bottle in the video. I recall three times when boozed up campers began hootin', hollerin' and shootin' during the night; one instance was in a remote area in Montana's northern Bitterroot range near the Idaho border, one was in a National Forest campground at Seeley Lake, Montana and one was in a commercial RV campground at Kettle Falls, Washington. Fortunately, none of those incidents resulted in any injuries.

 

It's not a stretch for me to envision a similar situation in the case Bob Garrett recorded. Campers get lit, maybe hear or see something that startles or scares them and pop a cap or two or more in that direction and hit something that takes exception to being shot. Another possibility, campers get lit and pop some caps into the woods just for drill and hit, scare, irritate (take your pick) something that reacts violently. If a revolver(s) were the tool of choice there wouldn't even be any cartridge cases for evidence if the shooter(s) didn't have time for a reload.

 

I haven't made up my mind on this one by any means, but there are certainly possible scenarios that could involve a Sasquatch of normally peaceful disposition reacting to seemingly outrageous provocation in his own backyard.

[Guest]

You seem to enjoy supporting the "blood thirsty killer" agenda.  Or at least the they are real agenda.  You spend a lot of time here, have you had an experience?

 

Dangerous and menacing are NOT the same, I'm sure you can think back on times being a gumshoe and figure that out.  If not, hit me up on PM, I can give you plenty more examples.  The only way I can figure someone seeing that is someone who is scared of everything.  I don't picture you like that. 

 

You ever figure out those genetics?  It was a pretty simple example i gave?  You get it now?  Why you question me on that?

 

Now that is amazing! You have somehow, eerily so, read my very thoughts, nearly verbatim.  Sometimes I wonder if this forum is about discussing Bigfoot or something else, in that case maybe you're right I don’t fit here.  LOL

 

On the surface, the answer to this question should be easy. Dangerous is synonymous with menace as are a whole lot words but that is not important, because beneath that trivial point entrenched deeper than opposing positions is something else isn’t it?

 

Look, I realize that some have come to these conclusions based on their own logic and reasoning, which is fine, but it still does not alter the fact that none of this can be proclaimed with absolute certainty.  An eye sees what it wants to see, the ears hears what it wants to hear and they believe or disbelieve what it wants.  You and your followers believe one thing and I do not.  We differ in view in that approach. And, to varying degrees, I feel it’s disingenuous to lead people on thinking these things all about love, peace serenity when it’s obvious and plain to the eyes that has not always been the case.  Fair minded students and readers must endeavor to read all there is to know about the topic and the event then ask themselves who would engage and participate in such hoax and why. So, in that vein people should hear both sides of it, if that is what you mean.

 

If I can’t express my voice here why don’t you just do a soliloquy and you and those that believe like you can do all the talking and the rest of us can sit here and listen .... we can hear about how lovely and peace loving these animals are, we can hear infra-sound, UFO's, blinking lights, and we can listen to people proclaim that is the only thing true and just. I don't buy into that.    

 

Seeing is believing my friend. How can you possibly pretend to know what I think, or what is in my heart or what others experience for that matter? The arrogance of anyone to think they can do that. If one has a genuine curiosity, as I did, do the research and make up your own mind.  If it scares you too bad don’t read it. 

 

On to the "blood thirsty killer" agenda you so freely attached to me. I support no agenda thus, the publicly known facts clearly establish a course of conduct that goes well beyond chanting and burning incense and the painted picture of a peace loving, live and let live docile creature that we are led to believe. The result is the sequence of dramatic events with a long history. People avoid things that most terrify them, as if not knowing and denying what is could make it no so. I get it … I really do. If it scares you too bad, and if you don’t agree don’t read it.

 

There appears to be two general genres of people of thought here; those who are open minded and those who feel secure in the presumption that science or man has not provided them with all the answers and those that know better than anyone else what they should they believe, say, feel in their heart and that’s really too bad.  

 

Lastly, and finally a thinly veiled comment implying that I was somebody scared of everything is not original, but interesting choice of words. Again, in an example throwing out words like that intended to discredit me or anyone from speaking doesn’t cut it me. I do not profess to know it all. . But, what I do know is that I have seen a lot and learned much more. I don’t allow others to think for me, I assess things and act accordingly. No …. I do not know it all, but if what I say scares you don’t read it.

 

 

[Guest]

Don't forget the profession of anthropologist developed from the guy whose job it was to get eaten first when making first contact with an unknown tribe

[Cisco]

I’m throwing a wide net, but help me understand this if you can. If you always considered Bigfoot dangerous, how is it that you don’t believe them to be blood thirsty killers?  Isn’t that giving voice to two opposing views? If they are dangerous and menacing does it matter if they are blood thirsty and menacing or opportunistic and menacing killers? Is there a difference?  - Just Asking ....

 

 

Gumshoe

 

There are many animals that I consider dangerous, such as lions, bears, sharks, wolves, etc. However, they are not blood thirsty killers, as so often portrayed in movies. I believe Bigfoot are dangerous in the same way as I believe bears are dangerous.

 

Do I personally have any reason to think they are dangerous? No, I've never been threatened or attacked by a Bigfoot. However, I've never been threatened or attacked by a bear either but I'm certain they are dangerous.

 

Bigfoot, bears, lions, and other predators are dangerous simply because its their nature. However, I don't think many of these animals kill just for the sake of killing. Therefor, they're not "blood thirsty" killers. I think they kill when they believe there's an opportunity to do so, without risk of life or limb and the hope to eat something.

 

Any of these animals will also defend themselves if provoked or if they're protecting young or territory. Again, this makes them, in my estimation, dangerous.

 

I would not turn my back on any of these animals, including Bigfoot because I don't want to make myself a target.

 

There have been many historic and verified accounts of animals that have become habitual man eaters and in some cases, killers for the sake of killing. The Lions of Tsavo are an example of "blood thirsty killers." When I was younger, I used to enjoy reading some of the Peter Capstick books about famous man eaters and the men that hunted them.

 

Anyhow, I sincerely hope this clears up any misunderstanding between dangerous and "blood thirsty."

[jayjeti]

That is a great link Bonehead, thanks. Regarding confirmed Sasquatch kills, it's unlikely we would ever hear of them unless unequivocal evidence remained.

 

As far as the "torn up camp" incident, if memory serves there was an empty booze bottle in the video. I recall three times when boozed up campers began hootin', hollerin' and shootin' during the night; one instance was in a remote area in Montana's northern Bitterroot range near the Idaho border, one was in a National Forest campground at Seeley Lake, Montana and one was in a commercial RV campground at Kettle Falls, Washington. Fortunately, none of those incidents resulted in any injuries.

 

It's not a stretch for me to envision a similar situation in the case Bob Garrett recorded. Campers get lit, maybe hear or see something that startles or scares them and pop a cap or two or more in that direction and hit something that takes exception to being shot. Another possibility, campers get lit and pop some caps into the woods just for drill and hit, scare, irritate (take your pick) something that reacts violently. If a revolver(s) were the tool of choice there wouldn't even be any cartridge cases for evidence if the shooter(s) didn't have time for a reload.

 

I haven't made up my mind on this one by any means, but there are certainly possible scenarios that could involve a Sasquatch of normally peaceful disposition reacting to seemingly outrageous provocation in his own backyard.

 

On one of the videos Bob Garrett mentions several other torn up camps he had discovered before this one, although those were not discovered just shortly after the attack like this one.  He talks about many disappearances in that area and unidentified human bones being found.  Whatever is the cause of these reactions, if sasquatches are the culprit, I think the current word of this thread used here is "dangerous."  It seems there are some dangerous/menacing sasquatches in that area.