Campsite Destroyed

[Guest]

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."

 

Thank you Cisco, that was all I was asking …. J

[southernyahoo]

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.

 

Aside from the BF hypothesis for torn up camps, there is a strong possibility to read too much into a camp site that was left in shambles. If there were valuable items left behind then I would suspect some sort of encounter with an animal, but when those personal items are gone and all that was left was a tent, a smoldering fire, and some trash then I would think the campers were simply the careless disrespectful types and probably just ran out of enthusiasm for the outdoors once the southern heat in July had taken it's toll. 

 

I think BF could be dangerous because of the size they are reported to be, speed, agility etc. It gives the impression they could harm us easily, and with dealing with their unknown behavior in certain circumstances I'd always error on the side of caution. My impression of them is still towards a sentient being, but with that comes intelligence, curiosity, emotions, bad tempers etc.

[Cisco]

There's also the practical side of why an animal, such as BF, would be dangerous to man. It's an accepted belief that they have a well developed brain and frontal lobe. That kind of development, from an evolutionary perspective, would require a large amount of nutrients, including protein.

 

Given that most predators are opportunistic and exert the least amount of energy possible, in order to gain a meal, I have to assume that an unarmed man, lost in the wilderness, tired, weakened and hungry, would be too good of a meal to pass up. Especially if you compare the effort needed to capture a healthy deer, in comparison with a man in the condition I just described.

 

Granted, a lost, tired and unarmed man in the wilderness is much different than some happy, well fed campers. I can't imagine any predator, including Bigfoot, would attack a camp sight, with the intent of nabbing a plump camper.

 

If Bob Garret has discovered other camp sights that have evidence of this behavior, then I have to think that's really an anomaly.  Finding an area with human bones scattered about and documented disappearances, is something else entirely. Could BF be the culprit? I think he's as good a suspect as any other predator but he's for sure, not alone in the list of suspects. It could have been any animal, large enough to kill a man, as well as weather, dehydration and many other maladies.

 

It would appear that Bob Garret enjoys a certain amount of sensationalism in his reports, if he's documented this type of activity, more than once?

[Guest]

Note, Garrett found prints around camp, trees around camp were smashed up, personal items such as clothes or sleeping bags were widely scattered away from tents, thrown off into trees. Leaves a pretty slim choice of culprits. 

 

I don't think Garrett is after sensationalism, he's certainly no Biscardi type, he's calling it as he saw it, and what he saw was smoking gun for him, knowing the area and knowing the boogers. 

[southernyahoo]

I certainly wouldn't discount some of his experiences in that area since I'm aquainted with atleast one of his research partners and have stood where they both say they saw an 8 foot creature. Just saying an experience like that could skew ones perception of anything else that happens in that spot.

 

An alternate explanation for the torn up camp could be that fire ants got in their tent, their sleeping bags and their clothes. That can make people act real crazy, and they would leave their clothes scattered, leave the tent, run around camp barefooted and barely put out their fire before gathering their essentials and getting out of there.

Edited February 10, 2015 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

I wasn't there or know anything firsthand other than what this Garrett fellow alleges but, somebody receiving so much official attention over fire ants doesn’t quite sound right to me.

[Guest]

Jayjetti: Around the 16:00 minute mark and following it talks about two government agents, one small and the other a huge burly biker type that intimidates people to keep quiet.  I've heard of similar accounts.  Below is an audio of a man claiming to have shot a BF and two similar men persuading him not to talk about it.

 

There have been numerous instances in which two men meeting this description have interacted with people who have had credible encounters, including intimidating local LE. Here is some possible background. On SC Episode 69 on 1/4/15, one of the guests is a rural deputy in the pan handle of West Virginia who has responded to a number of Sasquatch related calls. One of his friends, a deputy from the same department, was formerly a ranger at several National Parks, including Mesa Verde in the mid 1990's. While the two were talking about Bigfoot recently, the former ranger said that they are common knowledge in the Park Service and related that in about 1994 he remembered reading in a daily ranger report (these reports compiled high profile incidents from around the country and were distributed to all the parks) that two campers were killed by a Bigfoot in Glacier. He is going to contact some former co-workers and try to find a copy of the report.

 

In Episode 72 on 1/11/15, a caller named Travis told of his encounter in Glacier on July 30^th, 1997 while working as a maintenance worker with a high school friend and the friends uncle, both of whom are Native American. Travis and his friend came upon a large male Sasquatch digging under a fallen, rotten tree and when it heard them it jumped up, roared and came after them. Travis’ friend sprayed a cloud of mace (his term, pepper spray may be more likely) behind them from a can they were issued which caused the creature to pause long enough for them to get to their mountain bikes and back to their truck and escape. The uncle didn’t want to talk to Travis about it, but when he pressed the issue was told it may have been the same creature (he used a native word that sounded like Chanti or Kanti) that killed two campers in the Park in 1994.

 

Travis began talking about the incident among his co-workers and a few days later a large, bearded man calling himself Bear showed up in a black Ford Explorer with U.S. Government plates. He launched into a profanity laced public diatribe at Travis telling him he couldn’t tell a bear from a white tail and he needed to shut up. The uncle, who was present, tried to talk him down a bit, addressing him as Gary at which point the man came down on him for using his real name. After the episode ended, Travis found out the man’s full name is Gary Callahan, that he is from Dillon, Montana and the son of Todd Callahan who was said to be respected as a tracker by the Native Americans and supposedly killed a Sasquatch in the 1930’s and brought in the body.

This is a greatly condensed version of Travis’ account but I have attempted to report the salient parts accurately.

 

 

I've never been big on conspiracy theories, but if some department or departments of the government are actively trying to bury information on this subject it seems as if their plans are coming unraveled pretty rapidly with the information being disclosed. Time will tell.

How can anyone deny that the Park Rangers and the government are covering up the reality of this species existing in our parks and forests, and that these creatures are eating us humans because we make such easy prey?

 

Of course they are, otherwise the evening news would be full of the stories of the missing people and the likely culprit since BF has been observed carrying people off never to be seen again. 

 

Is money at the bottom of the cover-up? Money made because people camp and hike there, and purchase food and supplies from the local stores?

 

Why *else* is the government so determined to keep BF a secret?

 

** Please, someone here has to have some answers as to why all of this "cover-up" is happening.**

Edited February 10, 2015 by SweetSusiq

[SWWASAS]

Is money at the bottom of the cover-up? Money made because people camp and hike there, and purchase food and supplies from the local stores?

 

Why *else* is the government so determined to keep BF a secret?

 

** Please, someone here has to have some answers as to why all of this "cover-up" is happening.**

It has to be something else if a cover up is happening. Tourism dollars are spread around too thin and I hardly think there is a coalition of country stores trying to keep the lid on BF in the woods. The government does things for its own reasons and it takes big money to have much influence on government. In the PNW the federal government is closing campgrounds right and left. They claim they have no money to keep them open. If camping money had any influence on the government, they would want to keep them open.

The timber industry maybe has that kind money but they seem to be loosing ground just having enough influence to get logging permits in federal forests. There is very little logging in federal forests. The last figure I heard that logging is only about 10% of that necessary for sustained yield with replanting. In other words, 90% of the timber in federal forests will just get old, die of disease, or burn up from forest fires rather than being logged and replanted. So it would seem that the timber industry does not have a whole lot of influence with the present government. That suggests that the timber industry is not a reason for any cover up. If there is one it has to be some other factor.

Edited February 10, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[southernyahoo]

I wasn't there or know anything firsthand other than what this Garrett fellow alleges but, somebody receiving so much official attention over fire ants doesn’t quite sound right to me.

 

There might well be bigfoot in there, but that doesn't mean Bob is right about them being responsible for as many people going missing as he might think. I could see local officials not wanting him to make a big stink about the people going missing in there, even if he is right about some of them. Some could be the standard human foul play scenarios.

 

I remember back when the NAWAC was the TBRC and they were going to have a Texas Wildlife official give a talk at one of their conferences. He wound up having to back out of it when he was told by his boss that he was "not" going to be there. Can't remember the exact words, but it had the tone of forbidence. 

 

BTW, I think Bob has some of his accounts back up and running but without someof his content.

[Guest]

I’m in agreement SY … and if somebody was ordered not to appear before public and discuss that which concerns people, I guess that says it all.  Once again, I feel it is necessary to add that I do not know any more about it than most here but if it is an act of miscreants or animals people should be apprised and allow them to make their own informed decisions.  Forewarned is forearmed, meaning how else does one protect themselves from reprobates, animals or insects if they have no advanced notice?  Good post SY ...

 

Just a point off topic here, we have a lot of new members who may or may not what the acronyms such as NAWAC and TBRC mean, so could you explain it for them please?  

 

 

Edited February 10, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Cisco]

I remember back when the NAWAC was the TBRC and they were going to have a Texas Wildlife official give a talk at one of their conferences. He wound up having to back out of it when he was told by his boss that he was "not" going to be there. Can't remember the exact words, but it had the tone of forbidence.

 

I can certainly believe that his boss would not want him to talk, in an official capacity, at a BF conference. Likely for the same reasons I don't mention or bring up Bigfoot to my clients, simply because I like to be taken seriously.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that some disappearances in our forests can likely be attributed to Bigfoot. However, Bigfoot as a subject, carries a certain stigma. Due in large part to the efforts of hoaxers, past and present, as well as the media and they way they portray the people interested or involved in Bigfoot research. Even though there are researchers that come across as serious and professional, its the Finding Bigfoot show that gets all of the attention, resulting in a stereotype that all BF researchers are like Moneymaker.

 

I think this is the primary reason no government official wants to comment on the subject. It's a good way to lose credibility and likely your career. I don't think there's any kind of cover up. I just think no government official wants to risk their job by saying the "B" word for fear of becoming a laughingstock.

[Guest]

Could very well be the case.

[Guest Suesquach]

Everything I've read or listened to regarding Bob Garett and his experiences with the torn up camp just dont set right with me. There seems to me there is something more sinister going on behind the scenes and there are some people who have gone to great lengths to put out just enough misinformation to hide the truth.

[beerhunter]

While we are on topic of "Wildlife Officials" and BF, here is something I found posted on the internet a couple years back on a hunting forum -

 

I don't know if bigfoot is real or not. But when I was with search and rescue 30+ years ago, there was a guy that worked for the forest service that would ride his horse into the Mill Creek watershed out of Walla Walla to check on the wildlife. He told me he rode in that area for 12 years but not anymore, because he had seen a bigfoot. I asked him if he was sure it wasn't a black bear, he said he knew what a black bear looked like and every other animal that lived there. He said it was about 20 yards from him when it came out on the trail he was on and stood there for about ten sec. then went up the hill. He said he would never ride in there again, and he didn't care if anyone believed him or not.

So is there a bigfoot? who knows, But this guy sure thinks so.

[Catmandoo]

I had to wade through this thread. From what has been posted here, there are zero accounts of the campsite damage being observed. Just finding the aftermath. Observations are needed.

The jealous female idea is not without merit. The female Alaskan Brown Bear has a 'jealous female' charge. Not a bluff charge. The reason most people don't hear about it/get warned, is that it would impact tourism.

Black bears will sniff out, point blank, a brand new, out of the package plastic tent.

I think Flashman had a comment about BF--UFO link. Flashman, get a grip......the greys would not allow the BF into the ship. Low overhead and they could never get the smell out of the control deck. And those fleas and ticks. No way.

There is a modern way to calm campers who may have concerns about a large hairy mammal visiting their campsite. Put up 1 or 2 trail cameras and sleep easy.