Guest Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 You know that if Wes Germer had not erected a site for paid content, none of this would have arisen. It just changes peoples impression of you, add to that he drove an older hummer in a video, and people just start making assumptions, the vehicle is used and cost him $14,000, hardly worth even mentioning. Wes kinds of has that tough guy look behind the shades, it all is just impressions people get, and having been burned in this community by a fair amount of individuals, well you see how quickly a witch hunt can ensue. IMO the facts surrounding the date of the encounter and moon phase are something to consider, but hardly why I would question the account. What is really interesting to me is that given the details, the length of time, and the number of Sasquatch seen, you would be very hard pressed to find another encounter like it, so it would have to be considered a-statistical from the other sighting data. The fact that they saw 3 or 4 Sasquatch in one episode, prolonged time frame, and the aggressive behavior described, it just has not been reported by anyone else that I know of, correct me if I am wrong, but it sort of seems like a one of a kind account. That is more reason for us to question it, not making any presumptions, but just looking at the statistical data. Gumshoeye, you seem to have a grasp on the available sighting data, can you find any reports that parallel this one in terms of the length of the encounter, the number of sasquatch seen, and the behavior described? I feel this is the most objective way of looking at the possibility of such an encounter in a statistical fashion. LCB, send me a PM when you get a chance … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee2go Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I think people will just take what they want from this, form their own opinion and most likely not change their opinions about the rest of the bf world. Believers and Knowers will push it aside and skeptics may use it as fuel for their fire. This goes for both the campsite incident and the Wes Germer story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Not a paying customer and I only listen to the show for the entertainment, but the timing of this is so very suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 If there wasn't a case to answer then why the multiple resignations? Why no robust defense? No way did folks gun for these guys just because they got greedy. The community has a whole bunch of folks eager to get to the truth. Uncomfortable or not. This podcast had an agenda from day one. This agenda didn't add up with a lot of folks in the BF scene so it was only natural it would be scrutinized further. Thankfully we don't need skeptics to clean up our mess. We have 'critical thinkers' within the footer fraternity who can scrutinize and assess as well as anyone. Each year brings more lessons to be learned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Does it make sense the Gov would threaten a lawsuit against a BF person who would expose BF to the masses even more? I think we have been taken for a ride, which is fine, its all crazy stuff anyway, and the stories are good, But yea, we are being ridden good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I don't think Wes and Woody ever expected for their show to explode the way it did....So I'm not buying them having an "agenda" from the start, How could they of possibly predicted their success? I think people are pulling at straws here and the term "witch hunt" that has been thrown around seems a perfect fit. So they offered a premium membership to people who wanted it? Big Whoop. There is a premium member section here at the forums as well. It doesn't mean the admins have an agenda. The funds used from the premium membership is used to maintain this site we all love. So SC doing something similar makes their show suddenly shady? Again, not taking the bait. I opted out on the premium membership but I still maintained my admiration for the show. They deserve the success they have seen and should have the free will to take the show in any direction they see fit. If you don't like the show.... don't listen. It's that simple. All this drama seems so unnecessary....but <chuckles> this is the bigfoot community right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I don't really have a dog in this fight one way or the other. I have listened to (and to a certain extent) enjoyed a goodly number of their shows, albeit I've always done so more for the entertainment value rather than taking all or even most of it seriously. I view it much like listening to ghost or campfire stories. If the show continues, I am sure I will continue to do the same. As far as paid content goes, I've not anted up, nor did I ever care to. The free content was more than enough for me. To address the current flap though, I thought the story of their encounter was bogus from the get-go. It was all too fantastical and convenient to me. The duration of the event, the number of cryptids involved, their size and behavior, the seeming narrow escape...it all seemed too contrived and inconsistent with the vast majority of encounters reported. I also had noted long ago the inconsistency of how they stated that they didn't know anything at all about BF prior to the event, yet became instant experts on the topic. As I recall, they even let slip a few times that they had indeed been interested in the topic beforehand. The new information presented regarding weather and moon phases doesn't surprise me at all. I'm particularly amused at all of the comments regarding 'yeah, well can you tell me what you were doing, what the weather and moon was like on such and such night three years ago'? Well no, I honestly can't...that is unless something as dramatically life changing as this event supposedly was took place...in an outdoor setting...where factors such as weather and moonlight play an integral part to the story. To top it off, the damning email sent to WASRT the next day seems to be verified as legitimate, and that email is the lynchpin to it all. I could accept they remembered the date wrong. That's no big deal, they could just be mistaken, goodness knows I have forgotten many a date. However, the email very specifically states it was the 15th. That email wasn't written one month, one year, or three years later. It was written the very next day leaving a permanent record of WHEN the event happened. That leaves absolutely no wiggle room as to dates, and completely takes that excuse off the table. Meteorological records for the 15th completely contradict their account of what the evening was like. Sorry folks, no excuses, no faulty memory, no twisting of facts, no wishing is going to change the fact that conditions were not at all what they claimed they were on the evening of the encounter as established by that email to WASRT. Therefore, the only answer left is that they fabricated the circumstances around the event to suit their purposes. This in turn causes the entire report to become suspect. What else did they fabricate to suit their purpose? This in turn causes one to wonder if it wasn't all contrived to garner fame, sense of importance, or money using a podcast as their vehicle. If all of this weren't enough, think about this. How do they keep the interest and enthusiasm about their show up? As with just about any endeavor, they have to find bigger and better stories that's how. Now they've grabbed the ball and run with this whole "Torn Up Campsite" story, and more recently, the log throwing incident. Awfully convenient if you ask me, and I don't believe in too many coincidences. If the whole SC show is based on lies, it then comes perilously close to becoming a hoax. How is that any different than the Marx's, Biscardi's, Dyer's, &c. of the world? As I stated originally, I have no dog in the fight so none of this is personally driven. I get a kick out of their show the same way I do Coast to Coast or any similar broadcast, and I could care less if they make money off of it...but I don't really appreciate being deliberately lied to. I'm not particularly singling SC out either...I hold everyone to the same standards, whether it be NAWAC, George Noorey, Janice Carter or whoever. If it's all about entertainment, that's fine; but don't outright lie about some incident that supposedly happened to you and try to pawn it off as the truth when you know good and well that it isn't. For me, and I'm sure many others, that completely destroys any credibility they might have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I love camping in a tent but I'm afraid to anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) I'm far from being a scientist, but it seems a solar flare would light up the sky as bright as a full moon. ( thank you google search engine ) Apparently, the entire week around the 16th there was a significant solar flare. If this is the case, it would explain why they could of seen things so vividly and why it seemed to be so bright outside when there in fact was not a full moon. https://www.sasquatchchronicles.com/there-was-a-source-of-a-bright-sky-on-nov-16th-and-surrounding-dates/ http://www.space.com/18533-giant-sun-eruption-nasa-video.html Edited March 21, 2015 by simplyskyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I don't think Wes and Woody ever expected for their show to explode the way it did....So I'm not buying them having an "agenda" from the start, How could they of possibly predicted their success? I think people are pulling at straws here and the term "witch hunt" that has been thrown around seems a perfect fit. So they offered a premium membership to people who wanted it? Big Whoop. There is a premium member section here at the forums as well. It doesn't mean the admins have an agenda. The funds used from the premium membership is used to maintain this site we all love. So SC doing something similar makes their show suddenly shady? Again, not taking the bait. I opted out on the premium membership but I still maintained my admiration for the show. They deserve the success they have seen and should have the free will to take the show in any direction they see fit. If you don't like the show.... don't listen. It's that simple. All this drama seems so unnecessary....but <chuckles> this is the bigfoot community right? I agree that they should be able to do with the show whatever they please. They want to have a premium membership, fine. I don't see what all the fuss is about in regards to that part. The thing that I don't think is cool is that it's ok to intentionally (IF that's what they are doing) fabricate encounters and cover ups in order to get people to join. People call into the show to tell their stories in an environment where they won't be ridiculed. They are placing their trust in these guys to be genuine with them. If all this with the encounter and the campsite cover up is BS, I think that's disrespecting the people who pay for their membership in order to hear and connect with others who have been through something like they have and also disrespecting the people who call into the show for the same reason. JMO - and it don't really matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 21, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 21, 2015 I'm far from being a scientist, but it seems a solar flare would light up the sky as bright as a full moon. ( thank you google search engine ) Apparently, the entire week around the 16th there was a significant solar flare. If this is the case, it would explain why they could of seen things so vividly and why it seemed to be so bright outside when there in fact was not a full moon. https://www.sasquatchchronicles.com/there-was-a-source-of-a-bright-sky-on-nov-16th-and-surrounding-dates/ http://www.space.com/18533-giant-sun-eruption-nasa-video.html A solar flare will cause the aurora borealis to light up but that only lights up places in the North Country. Below about 45 degrees latitude people rarely see the aurora. It never produces light as bright as the full moon, and what is produced is flickering and very transient. I tend to not like these radio show recreations of sighting events. If you read a written account from the source (witness) and then listen to the radio show host read an account of the same encounter, it is usually different and often embellished. While it may be good entertainment, I do not like to be misled with embellishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) If the solar flare was strong enough, it is possible to be seen farther south. There were two solar flares that night. One at 10pm PST time and the other at 2am PST ) For example: ( aurora lights seen from ozark arkansas in 2011 ) FYI, this is time lapse video. Here are some aurora lights from down south, in Australia. Edited March 21, 2015 by simplyskyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I don't know what happened with their story, and I agree there seems to be a big hole in it with the information we have regarding the date stamped email. Could there be a innocent explanation? Sure...but we haven't been given one. The last thing we need in this field are hoaxers or folks fabricating encounter stories. It gives the skeptics too much ammo to easily. I am not ready to throw all of the stories they've carried on their site out at this point. If they are frauds it doesn't make all of the people that have shared stories with them frauds. IF this was a fabrication is does not invalidate the rest of the information simply because said information was brought to light on their website. I hope that within the next couple of weeks we can get a better handle on this and the facts will become clearer. Adding these guys to the Hall of Shame won't be fun, but it may become necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) The alleged facts strongly suggest that a lot of this is based on circumstantial evidence and I'm not an authority here. I would be the first to say mea culpa... but this whole thing seems a bit to contrived for my liking, and until there is an admission of guilt, I have to rely on my own instinct and bearing to guide me without passing judgment on anyone without more information. You know there's a difference between wanting and having “mens rea,†a guilty mind or intent to commit a crime. If anyone committed a crime of fraudulent schemes because I guess that’s the essence of this discussion at the moment, am I the only one not seeing something here, has anyone filed a complaint, was anyone charged or arraigned to answer the charges? Just asking from the heart without any angry folded arms across my chest… :-) For that reason alone it still sounds like a bunch of bull butter to me but I may be wrong, I know I bought and used my share of pencils and erasers even used white out by the paint brushes full. Cheers to you all. LOL! Edited March 22, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) The last thing we need in this field are hoaxers or folks fabricating encounter stories. It gives the skeptics too much ammo to easily. -- I think it's a mistake to try to clamp down on "hoaxers", thinking that will quiet the skeptics. The skeptics will never be quiet, for many reasons. It's time to stop fearing them and trying to accommodate them. It's not a good idea to grant power to people who have no power over you -- and that's what you do when you try to stamp out hoaxing, hoping to appease the skeptics. You are letting the skeptics make the rules, so to speak, and that is giving away your power, and that is something it is not wise to do. IF this was a fabrication is does not invalidate the rest of the information simply because said information was brought to light on their website. -- Totally agree. Adding these guys to the Hall of Shame won't be fun, but it may become necessary. -- Disagree here. There's a reason we don't put people in the stocks anymore. Doing so just creates fear in everybody else. And the desire to create fear in others is a desire to control others. We're supposed to be trying to cultivate wisdom and kindness in each other -- not fear. Fear breeds resentment and eventually backfires, usually in spectacular ways. It's much more effective to focus your attention on the people who are saying things that make sense to you. Support them, and they (and you) will flourish, and everything else will fade in significance. ...am I the only one not seeing something here, has anyone filed a complaint, was anyone charged or arraigned to answer the charges? Just asking from the heart without any angry folded arms across my chest… :-) -- No, Gumshoeye, you are not the only one. You have lots of company. Edited March 22, 2015 by LeafTalker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts