Campsite Destroyed

[Guest]

The fact is, a certain % of Squatch reports are going to be faked. There should have been more red flags, as I flagged only one show from Sas Chronicles, maybe a few from other sites, that I felt were not believable. That Will  left the show does not bode well, and they don't seem to be reconciling, so Will is not buying what Sas Crew is selling. Does it matter? Nah, it comes down to good story telling, there is enough info out there to take away what you will with it. I do know that they had some type of BF show before which was pretty good, it should still be up on blogtalk. Pretty stupid mistake with the moon thing, almost sounds like a gov disinformation campagn.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Wag

[MarkGlasgow]

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.

So we are saying that it's okay to hoax and lie? We turn the other cheek and pretend it never happened?

This isn't what we do. We pressurise guys like Dyer and Standing and push them out of the world of BF where they cannot continue to cause harm.

It's clear some are having great difficulty in digesting the very clear case being made against these guys, but as unpalatable as it may be for some, it will be very difficult for the Sas Chronicles guys to survive this.

Let's be thankful to the sharp minds who can cut through the BF BS.

[clubbedfoot]

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.

 

 

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, not that my opinion means a hill of beans...but I very much appreciate your yeoman efforts try to find this elusive thing....the only thing that matters.... the truth...I don't think I am not going out on a  limb when I say that open minded but critical thinkers more than recognize your contributions to this thread....

Edited March 31, 2015 by clubbedfoot

[Guest Divergent1]

I would suggest everyone listen to Episode 75 of the Sasquatch Chronicles here:

 

https://www.sasquatchchronicles.com/sc-ep75-looking-back-over-the-last-75-shows/

 

It covers a number of the questions being raised in this thread and has some very interesting caller encounter stories. The one from a man named Stacy who had a roadside encounter with several Sasquatch when his delivery van broke down on a stormy night last summer near Burnsville, Mississippi, is compelling. It is without question the most hair raising account I've ever heard; the emotion evident in his voice as he relives, not retells, relives the experience is so powerful I had to pause the playback for a spell to chill. I'm going to finish it now.

I listened and all I can say is, that fear, I can relate to it. Poor guy!!

[clubbedfoot]

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, not that my opinion means a hill of beans...but I very much appreciate your yeoman efforts try to find this elusive thing....the only thing that matters.... the truth...I don't think I am not going out on a  limb when I say that open minded but critical thinkers more than recognize your contributions to this thread....

edit: I don't think I am not going out on a .....

[LeafTalker]

 

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 think Gumshoeye’s post went way beyond describing the possible effects of stress on perception. He said very clearly, “I (me and you and everyone reading this) were not there and none of us can rightfully claim to know another’s heart.†The heart is unaffected by stress. It contains our essence, and our true essence has no stress in it.

 

He goes on to say, “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?â€

 

The point is not that stress distorts perception; the point is that ALL perception is distorted, because every perceiver is unique. Everyone responds differently.

 

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?

 

It can’t be, but why do you need it to be? Why do you need a guarantee that someone can be trusted? Most of us, when we have a few decades on us, understand that there is no such thing as a guarantee of anything in life. Why are you looking for something that doesn’t exist?

 

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?

 

"Picking and choosing" is what we each do, every second of our lives. That's your job. You decide what's important, and only you. Nobody gets to decide for anyone else what's important and what's not.

 

There are only two ways to know whether or not something is true. One way is to trust yourself to know the truth when you hear it. You have an inner wisdom that always knows what direction to go in, but you have to be able to listen to it. You have to learn to hear it.

 

The other way is to go out in the field and have your own experiences. As you have those experiences, you can ‘calibrate’ better for yourself the things you hear from other people.

 

Ideally, of course, you would do both. 

 

It’s an iterative process that takes time. There’s no magic formula for figuring out who’s telling the “truth†and who isn’t. You have to have the patience to learn what indicators are the most reliable for YOU.

 

“Truth†is a very personal thing. There’s no one “truth†about anything – nothing that’s true for everyone for all time. Try to be content with the truth that shows up for you, and try not to hurt anyone else in your declaration of what’s true for you. If there’s any risk of that, it’s a good indication you should probably keep your truth to yourself. 

 

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Regarding what is truthful and what isn't, I think we need to determine whether or not the person is actively looking for BF (ie: a researcher) or is an accidental viewer. 

 

I would expect a highly detailed and precise report from a researcher, including but not limited to, photos, GPS coordinates, weather conditions, terrain description, date/time,  duration of the sighting, in addition to what was seen/heard/smelled.

 

I don't expect that kind of detail from someone who's, say, driving to music festival and a BF runs across the road or who's on a picnic with their family a BF is in the treeline watching them. In fact, I would be very  suspicious if an accidental viewer's report is as highly detailed as a researcher's because it would seem contrived.

[SWWASAS]

Regarding what is truthful and what isn't, I think we need to determine whether or not the person is actively looking for BF (ie: a researcher) or is an accidental viewer. 

 

I would expect a highly detailed and precise report from a researcher, including but not limited to, photos, GPS coordinates, weather conditions, terrain description, date/time,  duration of the sighting, in addition to what was seen/heard/smelled.

 

I don't expect that kind of detail from someone who's, say, driving to music festival and a BF runs across the road or who's on a picnic with their family a BF is in the treeline watching them. In fact, I would be very  suspicious if an accidental viewer's report is as highly detailed as a researcher's because it would seem contrived.

You quite eloquently said what I have been trying to get to with comments about field logs, GPS, and photographs. We cannot expect that from a casual witness who goes from being a skeptic one second to being a believer after a sighting of a BF crossing a road. They are neither physically equipped with the necessary gadgets at the time, nor mentally prepared to deal with processing what they have just seen. Some may become researchers because of interest, but others may respond by never setting foot in the woods again.

The commonality I see recently with the stories that do not check out, is while they may start with an honest experience, at some point they turn a corner, start fabrication, make puppets, produce videos, and want to make money off things. Is it the quest for making money that taints things with people? BF research does not lend itself to a steady supply of exciting finds if you need that to make money. Stuff happens sporadically, and nothing else may happen for months. Not the stuff that feeds pay for view or entertainment programs well. Just a thought I had this morning.

[Bonehead74]

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 think Gumshoeye’s post went way beyond describing the possible effects of stress on perception. He said very clearly, “I (me and you and everyone reading this) were not there and none of us can rightfully claim to know another’s heart.†The heart is unaffected by stress. It contains our essence, and our true essence has no stress in it.

He goes on to say, “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?â€

The point is not that stress distorts perception; the point is that ALL perception is distorted, because every perceiver is unique. Everyone responds differently.

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?

It can’t be, but why do you need it to be? Why do you need a guarantee that someone can be trusted? Most of us, when we have a few decades on us, understand that there is no such thing as a guarantee of anything in life. Why are you looking for something that doesn’t exist?

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?

"Picking and choosing" is what we each do, every second of our lives. That's your job. You decide what's important, and only you. Nobody gets to decide for anyone else what's important and what's not.

There are only two ways to know whether or not something is true. One way is to trust yourself to know the truth when you hear it. You have an inner wisdom that always knows what direction to go in, but you have to be able to listen to it. You have to learn to hear it.

The other way is to go out in the field and have your own experiences. As you have those experiences, you can ‘calibrate’ better for yourself the things you hear from other people.

Ideally, of course, you would do both.

It’s an iterative process that takes time. There’s no magic formula for figuring out who’s telling the “truth†and who isn’t. You have to have the patience to learn what indicators are the most reliable for YOU.

“Truth†is a very personal thing. There’s no one “truth†about anything – nothing that’s true for everyone for all time. Try to be content with the truth that shows up for you, and try not to hurt anyone else in your declaration of what’s true for you. If there’s any risk of that, it’s a good indication you should probably keep your truth to yourself.

Are you saying there is no objective reality, or that we are incapable of being objective regarding reality?

If it's the former, then there is no possibility of true, meaningful communication since there is nothing objective to discussed. Everything becomes relative. If the latter, I agree to a point (we all have our biases, filters, and predispositions), but again, meaningful communication requires some (not insignificant) level of objectivity.

Also, I'd like to make it clear that my point was rhetorical, in that I was making a declarative statement in the form of an interrogative. I've already got it sorted. It just seems that there are folks in bigfootery who choose to ignore or explain away contradictions in sighting reports when they happen to like the storyline or the storyteller. Why do some people (and no, I'm not pointing specifically at Gumshoeye) find it ok to scoff at an otherwise reliable witness who claims that they witnessed (just as an example) a glowing blue orb or some other anomalous phenomenon in conjunction with their bigfoot sighting, but then make excuses for someone who incudes an impossible contradiction (whether it be chronological, astronomical, geographical, or something else) as an integral part of their story?

ETA- I don't want to further derail this thread which is actually about Bob Garrett's claims. If I have anymore comments specifically about the SC crew, I'll refrain from posting them here.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

^^^

If there is a specific question that you want to ask, you can PM me. I am approachable, easy and to talk with and sometimes insightful. If there is a specific issue you have with me or suggestions that you have for the forum, as Steering Committee member I am forever at your service, PM me. That invitation is open for everyone.

 

Otherwise, I do agree let's right this train back on track and let me once again state that it is my position the essence of the entire SC controversy can all be traced back to the Bob Garrett disclosure. What do you say?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

Otherwise, I do agree let's right this train back on track and let me once again state that it is my position the essence of the entire SC controversy can all be traced back to the Bob Garrett disclosure. What do you say?

 

 

the Bob Garrett case is interesting, imo, for a number of reasons. I saw the vids on youtube before they were removed and I watched several other of his vids that were on youtube. BTW, the fact checking someone posted on a blog (I think the link was posted in this forum) had incorrect information Garrett's torn up camp was in the Sam Houston national forest not the Big Thicket.  The fact checker inquired specifically about the Big Thicket area. Per Google Maps, Big Thicket National Preserve and Sam Houston National Forest aren't the same thing and are at least 20 miles from each other. Maybe someone from Texas can confirm those locations, as I'm not from Texas and only spent about 30 minutes in the state during a layover at Dallas/Ft Worth 22 years ago.

 

Anyhow, the interesting points about the Garrett case:

 

1. He found a campsite that was obviously destroyed.

2. His first thought wasn't "Bigfoot", it was "crime scene."

3. He reported it to the police (rightfully so, imo)

4. He looked around to see if anyone was injured and needed help (rightfully so, imo, too. )

5. He had "before" and "after" video of the area: the footage filmed that night and footage filmed the next morning of the cleaned up area.

6. His alledged government problems

7. his youtube channel being removed for alleged pornography

[LeafTalker]

@Bonehead: I think I understand better where you’re coming from now, and I sympathize with your frustration. I have felt the same frustration here on this forum. But what I have slowly come to realize is that pointing out someone else’s inconsistencies is not the way to bolster one’s own arguments. We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. If I were to eliminate all the muddled-thinking, occasionally self-serving, and sometimes even downright nasty people from my life, I would be living a very solitary existence (or I wouldn’t be here at all, because I would have to eliminate myself, too). We all have a right to be here. The best you can do, I find, is celebrate what seems like “truth†to you wherever you find it, in whomever you find it, and work like the dickens to not attack people themselves, or their strange routes to what seems to you to be an alien truth. And if someone appears to start suffering from the words you say in support of your truth – which is clearly what has happened to Wes Germer – it’s time to stop saying those words. It doesn’t matter how “true†those words are. They don’t trump suffering. "First, do no harm."

 

Gumshoeye said, "let me once again state that it is my position the essence of the entire SC controversy can all be traced back to the Bob Garrett disclosure."

 

I've been really troubled by the same thought.  

Edited March 31, 2015 by LeafTalker

[Cisco]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I have not followed Bob Garrets work in a lot of detail but I'm under the impression that a lot of his reports tend to be about dangerous or violent Bigfoot interactions?

 

I don't believe the government shut down his Youtube channel. If the government wanted to shut down Bob Garret, they would have done so in a more effective manner. Since the "alleged government shut down" he's been very vocal and has gotten a fair amount of mileage from the story.

 

I pass no judgement on any of his claims. However, the "government shut down my Youtube account" excuse, raises a lot of red flags for me. They only shut down his account but allowed every other web site, pod cast and blog to continue discussing it...

[Guest]

the Bob Garrett case is interesting, imo, for a number of reasons. I saw the vids on youtube before they were removed and I watched several other of his vids that were on youtube. BTW, the fact checking someone posted on a blog (I think the link was posted in this forum) had incorrect information Garrett's torn up camp was in the Sam Houston national forest not the Big Thicket.  The fact checker inquired specifically about the Big Thicket area. Per Google Maps, Big Thicket National Preserve and Sam Houston National Forest aren't the same thing and are at least 20 miles from each other. Maybe someone from Texas can confirm those locations, as I'm not from Texas and only spent about 30 minutes in the state during a layover at Dallas/Ft Worth 22 years ago.

 

Anyhow, the interesting points about the Garrett case:

 

1. He found a campsite that was obviously destroyed.

2. His first thought wasn't "Bigfoot", it was "crime scene."

3. He reported it to the police (rightfully so, imo)

4. He looked around to see if anyone was injured and needed help (rightfully so, imo, too. )

5. He had "before" and "after" video of the area: the footage filmed that night and footage filmed the next morning of the cleaned up area.

6. His alledged government problems

7. his youtube channel being removed for alleged pornography

 

@Bonehead: I think I understand better where you’re coming from now, and I sympathize with your frustration. I have felt the same frustration here on this forum. But what I have slowly come to realize is that pointing out someone else’s inconsistencies is not the way to bolster one’s own arguments. We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. If I were to eliminate all the muddled-thinking, occasionally self-serving, and sometimes even downright nasty people from my life, I would be living a very solitary existence (or I wouldn’t be here at all, because I would have to eliminate myself, too). We all have a right to be here. The best you can do, I find, is celebrate what seems like “truth†to you wherever you find it, in whomever you find it, and work like the dickens to not attack people themselves, or their strange routes to what seems to you to be an alien truth. And if someone appears to start suffering from the words you say in support of your truth – which is clearly what has happened to Wes Germer – it’s time to stop saying those words. It doesn’t matter how “true†those words are. They don’t trump suffering. "First, do no harm."

 

Gumshoeye said, "let me once again state that it is my position the essence of the entire SC controversy can all be traced back to the Bob Garrett disclosure."

 

I've been really troubled by the same thought.  

 

Post# 271

Posted 18 March 2015 - 09:44 PM

“When you’re upfront and out front leading the charge, you wear a bulleyes on your back and you can expect to take an arrow or two. Anyone and everyone that may have their own reasons to obstruct this information will spend 24 hours and day looking for the slightest aberration in a word, a statement, a time and set the hounds loose on their target.  Me personally I don’t see any there there … It doesn't my opinion either way.  IMHO† - Gumshoeye

 

Post# 300  

Posted 20 March 2015 - 10:28 AM

“It also bears close semblance to misinformation in which case we’re talking a whole different ball game, in that case it was preconceived, calculated and deliberate …. “  -Gumshoeye

 

Post# 314

Posted 21 March 2015 - 10:25 PM

“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.†- Gumshoeye

 

Here is how I see it: This whole affair begins when somebody unwittingly stumbles upon something he apparently had no business of knowing and should not have seen it. His blunder by his own involvement created unforeseen dilemmas for which there were no logical explanations and no back up plan for, as heavy handed warnings and threats normally worked this time it served only to create more unwanted attention to and by whoever... [You insert your own opinion]

 

Enter the SC, they voluntarily insert themselves into the fray pledging to carry the mantle for the individual who finds himself under siege of a legal malaise greater than ever imagined far beyond his understanding. By and large, the major vehicle threatening to have this whole ball of yarn to unravel out of control is SC, they present a whole different dilemma. I can imagine damage control is in full bloom now after all, this is high stakes and careers and reputations and other things are at stake.

 

Yes there are much broader issues here and the whole episode up to the inadvertent discovery followed by the SC controversy reminds me of Psyops, as I have so subtlety hinted, and I believe the line was baited and we took the line hook and bait. To some extent I believe we have all been played like a fiddle.

 

Somebody look up the definition to misinformation and disinformation then think back about everything you heard and see if your opinions are swayed either way. – Just saying!

 

 

Edited March 31, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[LeafTalker]

Cisco, I think you're confusing Bob Garrett and Wes Germer. Bob Garrett has been completely silent since his various internet properties were shut down or disabled in some way, apparently because of his discovery of the destroyed campsite. It's Germer who has been vocal about the issues he's facing. 

 

It's been reported that Garrett was threatened, and that's why he's been silent. Garrett apparently told only a few people that he had been threatened, and Germer was one of them. That's why we know Garrett was threatened: through Germer. And some of us worry that that's why -- so coincidentally and so suddenly -- Germer is having "problems". 

 

Gumshoeye, is this what you're saying, too?