Campsite Destroyed

[clubbedfoot]

Gumshoeye duly noted....

 

But to  be fair I gave three options....and if anyone can think of any more feel free to add.....Heck....I'll add one....Bad memory due to novel and extremely stressful

 

event....(credit Gumshoeye)...I think igoring the possibility that someone is not telling the truth in any sense of the word is akin to sticking one's head in the sand.....I think

 

Wes even said (that prior to his encounter) that he wouldn't have believed someone if they told the story that he told (and this is w/o the numerous problems discussed in this

 

thread).....Also SWWASASPROJECT was 100% more PC than I was not to mention open minded....I am just not ruling out the possibility that something was a total

 

fabrication..
 
 

Edited March 30, 2015 by clubbedfoot

[LeafTalker]

Everyone has the right to make their own decision about whether or not someone else is telling the truth. That decision, however -- especially if the decision is that someone was not telling the truth -- should remain private. Why does anybody else need to know whether you trust someone else or not? Only you need to know that.

 

By expressing your opinion that someone is not telling the truth (and that's all it is, an opinion -- you weren't there, so you can't know what really happened), you're harming that person's reputation and exposing them to attack. Is it fair to do that, when the facts can't be known? What if you're wrong? How do you undo the damage you will have been party to, by publicizing your "doubts" about someone's integrity? "Oops, sorry old man. Sorry about the loss of family; of income; of reputation. No hard feelings, right?" 

 

That apology wouldn't work for me, and I doubt it would work for anyone else, either.  

[Guest]

Funny how people have seemingly tried to pick apart every detail of Wes's story, yet to the point where so many are accusing him of lying, yet if you read the investigations conducted of the BFRO site, they is really not too much digging, it typically is just a face-to-face telling of the encounter and showing the investigator where it happened.

 

I wonder how many of those BFRO reports would hold up under the same scrutiny?

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I believe Wes and Woody saw something. And I think the story became more embellished as it was retold. That's why, for me, the earlier versions of their story would be more accurate than the later retellings.

 

I'm not sure what they described  in at least 2 retellings as the "back of Yacolt mountain" is but based on the SWWASA's posts and the GPS coordinates, it's not Yacolt mountain. But it's also an example of the typically crappy way some people give directions or describe locations (ex. "We're across the street from the CVS pharmacy" , reality: they're across the street and 1 mile from the CVS pharmacy.)

[Guest]

Very good posts Leaftalker & Mythos.

 

Bigfootology is rife with uncertainty and riddled with paradoxes often replete with laughter, tears, triumph, and tragedy and sometimes even down-right nasty name calling, and yet somehow we come to accept ridicule and mob rule. This form of 'megaphone' diplomacy designed to scare and intimidate rivals and this sort of rebuke and public flogging through ridicule has been a very successful tool by government to media for a very long time. We’ve been conditioned to accept it as normal even though under circumstances strikingly similar to this behavior, we have little tolerance for the same behavior in our schools today.   

 

Unfortunately the most vocal critics have mounted arguments with impressive coordination and effort to demean and dismantle a promising budding outlet for Bigfoot awareness as demonstrated recently during the dust up over the Sasquatch Chronicles controversy. Regarding the murky circumstances of aforementioned program while it may be viewed as amusement for some it underscores the importance of reserving judgement, it also points out human infallibilities and difficulties in understanding human reluctance to remember the past under duress.  Regardless of the controversy about whether those gentlemen encountered one, three (Bigfoots) or none of the above, the fact remains that I (me and you and everyone reading this) were not there and none of us can rightfully claim to know another’s heart.

 

Duress as it I understand it, as I have seen and experienced it.

 

While it’s easy to second guess another's actions we all have to keep in mind what duress does to people, ask anyone whose experienced combat or worked in public safety or anyone faced with life or death situations about duress and pressure about making split second decisions or if they even considered their location, if they bothered looking at watch first or paused to write something down, determined the wind direction or considered the moon phases, the color of socks they were wearing that moment and see what they say. I have, and my partner has, and I can tell time slows down drastically like slow motion. You feel as though you’re seeing yourself in third person and everything happening is coming to you in snapshots. You may see the events playing out black and white or color as they were photos and you're in it, like watching a movie about you. Let me go on.

 

Your mind races at speeds you never thought possible as your heart rate accelerates so dangerously fast you think it will burst. You’re gasping for oxygen as adrenaline overload jets through your body. Your senses are keen. You may wet yourself, or you could find yourself drenched in sweat like never before experienced... You may find yourself shouting something in that split second moment, for help from above or maybe even a loved one’s name it doesn’t matter, but the only single thought is survival!  You "will" yourself to survive, you determine whether you live or die!  

 

Then it's over and quickly as it begun. It seemed like hours but in reality it was mere seconds of time. When it’s over and done with you shudder and shake as the adrenaline recesses, you may appear or sound drunk or intoxicated because the words leaving your lips are slurred and sound nonsensical. You may experience confusion and or become extremely fatigued and or emotional as normalcy begins to set in as think over what just occurred. You may begin this interpersonal state of second guessing yourself and or your personal actions. Your saying things in a state excited utterance and one of reasons why officer (s) involved in shootings are taken from the scene and separated, given immediate company and representation and allowed to recompose before questioning.  Days, weeks and even months later you relive the event and may even struggle with depression. Most people going through that will rightfully seek professional guidance in order to cope while others cannot or do not. Many people unaccustom to such duress go into immediate shock on scene and require immediate hospitalization. That is duress and while most here have the advantage of not being there to see what another claims to have experienced, it’s much easier to analyze and find discrepancies with another. With that said, everyone will react differently and respond differently and each will have vastly different opinions of what they experience but until you experience it, who can say what is real and fabrication?   

Edited March 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Bonehead74]

So why should we place any value on their claims (or anyone's claims) if the facts of the incident are so drastically distorted due to stress?

[SWWASAS]

First of all tell me what bad word I used to describe the Wes and Woody story.   I have been accused of using some bad word.    I used the word liar but said I am not calling anyone that word because I was not there.    In other words I did not call them that name.    Then I gave them a PC pass for stress, memory, and directional disability.     But it ends at that.     Gumshoeye apparently wants us to give everyone a pass no matter what they say.    No one does that for me here and I don't expect them to.    If we start doing that then the fabricated stories and the hoaxers will take over and be laughing their ass off at all of us.   Some hoax because they think we are all pathetically funny and they want to fool the true believers with a story.   Look at Youtube!         It is bad enough dealing with the skeptics.    So when someone comes into my research area, and has an encounter story to tell,  I would hope they take the time and care to make sure the facts of their story align with physical reality.     If they do not, we can conclude one of several things:     They are poor witnesses.   They fabricated all or parts of the story.    Or they are simply lazy and have not taken the time to try to understand what they experienced.   In the case of a night encounter, I would expect someone to return in the daytime when they can see well, and reconstruct the experience in their memory.       It is almost like Wes and Woody think the location was so remote that no one would ever go there or know anything about the geography. 

[Sasfooty]

So when someone comes into my research area, and has an encounter story to tell,  I would hope they take the time and care to make sure the facts of their story align with physical reality.     If they do not, we can conclude one of several things:     They are poor witnesses.   They fabricated all or parts of the story.    Or they are simply lazy and have not taken the time to try to understand what they experienced.  

 

So....are you saying that if someone has an encounter that in your opinion, doesn't line up with your idea of physical reality, they need to tweak it so it becomes "believable"? That may already happen more than you would think, & it can take volumes of info away from the encounter.

 

One of the other several things that we can conclude is that "they" have experienced something that "we" haven't "yet " & "we" should perhaps listen politely (without accusing them of being liars, lazy or poor witnesses) & file it away for future reference. "We" never know when it could happen to us & having that that little tidbit to mull over would help us immensely in dealing with what we have experienced.

[Guest]

First of all tell me what bad word I used to describe the Wes and Woody story.   I have been accused of using some bad word.    I used the word liar but said I am not calling anyone that word because I was not there.    In other words I did not call them that name.    Then I gave them a PC pass for stress, memory, and directional disability.     But it ends at that.     Gumshoeye apparently wants us to give everyone a pass no matter what they say.    No one does that for me here and I don't expect them to.    If we start doing that then the fabricated stories and the hoaxers will take over and be laughing their ass off at all of us.   Some hoax because they think we are all pathetically funny and they want to fool the true believers with a story.   Look at Youtube!         It is bad enough dealing with the skeptics.    So when someone comes into my research area, and has an encounter story to tell,  I would hope they take the time and care to make sure the facts of their story align with physical reality.     If they do not, we can conclude one of several things:     They are poor witnesses.   They fabricated all or parts of the story.    Or they are simply lazy and have not taken the time to try to understand what they experienced.   In the case of a night encounter, I would expect someone to return in the daytime when they can see well, and reconstruct the experience in their memory.       It is almost like Wes and Woody think the location was so remote that no one would ever go there or know anything about the geography. 

 

SWWASPROJECT … Please don’t misunderstand, I have conceded that something occurred, and something appears amiss or not right. To be clear I am not suggesting I want we or us to give everyone pass. I never said that you did my friend, if that is what was understood then I failed to make my point clear and that is my fault not yours.

 

What I did imply was that I thought you did an admirable job explaining your opinion and applauded you for that but I thought we could make the point without inferring somebody lied. It was said without pointing fingers or casting aspersions. The word lie or liars is a harsh word that cuts below skin of civil discourse here.

 

You made an excellent point related to making notes and that’s very studious and well but not all people think of that or bother to be so organized. That’s not a criticism of you it’s just pointing out that people are people and everyone won’t or act like you or me in every situation.

 

When I took a moment to explain and describe what duress and stressful situations are like it doesn’t mean to infer that everyone will experience each and every point by the numbers but it demonstrates what it was like as I experienced it, as my partner experienced it, and as I seen many times over 25 ½ years of everyday encounters in duress in various real life situations.

 

Juxtapose what I shared to Bigfoot encounters some may have or had side by side and I have accomplished my subtle appeal to be little more understanding of people without accepting fault until there is a conviction of guilt or clear admission. To do anything less is to relinquish our (mine and yours) freewill to mob rule. 

 

I spent a lifetime pursuing justice right or wrongly.  Even the most wanton criminals deserve and receive more consideration and legal rights than those men did in what I read, but I know for certain I wasn’t there to judge what is real or not. No not everybody is innocent and not everyone is guilty either in spite of how it seems to us. In Massachusetts some early colonials were wrongfully persecuted, and all throughout history there has been story after story of innocents being accused, prosecuted, even incarcerated for things they had nothing to do with. While hundreds have been released from prisons and jails after discovering their innocence nothing can restore the years spent incarcerated, no monetary value can restore one's name and reputation once damaged, and nothing can be said or done to recoup one's faith in human spirit when that occurs. No I am advocating people give hoaxer's a pass or wrong doer's a free pass I'm simply appealing for caution and more understanding of human nature when it come to this sort of thing. Of all the accolades I poured on you I still think it was a correct assessment even though we disagree on a few methods.   - IMHO

Edited March 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest crabshack]

So why should we place any value on their claims (or anyone's claims) if the facts of the incident are so drastically distorted due to stress?

 

Maybe we shouldn't and just enjoy the programs great bumper music.

 

Got to give the guy credit he is still making shows and is a good host to his guest.

[SWWASAS]

So....are you saying that if someone has an encounter that in your opinion, doesn't line up with your idea of physical reality, they need to tweak it so it becomes "believable"? That may already happen more than you would think, & it can take volumes of info away from the encounter.

 

One of the other several things that we can conclude is that "they" have experienced something that "we" haven't "yet " & "we" should perhaps listen politely (without accusing them of being liars, lazy or poor witnesses) & file it away for future reference. "We" never know when it could happen to us & having that that little tidbit to mull over would help us immensely in dealing with what we have experienced.

I do not create physical reality, in this case, it has a name called geography. Geography seems to be the component lacking in their account and is all that I have had issues with in their story. It is out there for all to see including the people that told the story in the first place. When they opened their mouth in a public forum, one would hope that they knew what they are talking about. For a story teller that is into entertainment, it makes little difference if their story matches the physical location. But when someone chooses to do that for whatever reason, we have every right to question all of it's content. How much happened, and how much is just a story? A couple of frequent skeptics here have called me a liar and a hoaxer and I do not recall you leaping to my defense.

[Guest]

Wes lied..

[Cisco]

I think excuses can be made for the discrepancies in their stories. Maybe they were shocked by the encounter and this caused them to forget important details. Not having been through an encounter, i can't describe what it would be like.

 

That being said, there have been many encounters with precise details noted. Again, perhaps Wes & Woody were so shocked or scared, they lost track of location and other relevant details.

 

However, what sticks in my craw is that before these discrepancies were brought to light, they were enjoying the credibility and the fruits of their sighting, through commercial gain. I had never followed their podcast until recently so I started listening to all of the past shows, as well as going back and reading their blog posts. They come across as very knowledgeable in all matters pertaining to Bigfoot. Until recently, they were exceedingly confident in their sighting, as well as the details. They never expressed doubts as to their location or the details of their sighting.

 

Maybe they did or maybe they did not have an encounter. Regardless, they have created a business model around the idea of Bigfoot being a malevolent, if not dangerous creature, and have focused on sightings and reports of this nature. They know that sensationalistic reports are what their audience wants to hear about and this creates a huge conflict of interest for the subject matter as a whole. As we all know, most sightings are fairly mundane in that they involve actions such as crossing a road or picking berries. For every 100 of these benign sightings, there's one with an element of true danger.

 

This constant need to report on exciting events make it very difficult to present an objective and balanced insight on the topic. I can easily see the temptation to
add flavor to reports, as well as the financial incentive created by gathering more members and listeners.

 

In my opinion it's not their sighting that is a cause for concern. It's the combination of all the things they do and the financial motivation that fuels it.

[Sasfooty]

A couple of frequent skeptics here have called me a liar and a hoaxer and I do not recall you leaping to my defense.

 

I'm not defending these people, because I've never listened to the Sasquatch Chronicles. I've never read anything there, if there is anything to read. I know absolutely nothing about it except what I've read here, which isn't much, and that's why (afaik) that was my first post on this thread. (Don't have time to check 20 other pages to be sure.) I don't know if they're lying or not. I guess I'm overly sensitive about references to "physical reality". Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying.

 

Also, sorry about not leaping to your defense. I must not have seen those posts, when you were called a liar & hoaxer, because having suffered a lot of that myself, I would have probably had something to say.

[Bonehead74]

So why should we place any value on their claims (or anyone's claims) if the facts of the incident are so drastically distorted due to stress?

  

Maybe we shouldn't and just enjoy the programs great bumper music.

 

Got to give the guy credit he is still making shows and is a good host to his guest.

I just want to make it clear that the point of my post was to question Gumshoeye's belief that we can forgive discrepancies in this particular account based on perceived or claimed stressors. I couldn't care less about this particular case or Sasquatch Chronicles in general (I've only listened to the infamous Coonbo beheading episode). My question is more about our general philosophies of belief and how we decide if our burden of proof has been met. If fear/stress/whatever so greatly distorts a witnesses' perception, how can any account be trusted, especially if the reporter claims to have been frightened? Do we pick and choose which details we want to keep, and if so, what criteria to we use to make that decision? Does this apply to all reports, or just the ones we would like to see not debunked?

Edited March 30, 2015 by Bonehead74