Guest Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) 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? Yes thank you Leaftalker, that is exactly the way it appears … does anyone else see that? Edited March 31, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted March 31, 2015 Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2015 Well, no. Fundamental difference is I do not believe Bob Garrett's story, not the campsite, not the supposed conspiracy to shut him down. Therefore, I do not believe anything which is built on any assumption that his story is truthful. You came from law enforcement. Did you assume that one felon vouching for another was telling the truth? I doubt it. I see this as the same. One liar and fraud vouching for the integrity of another or relying on the integrity of another does not count for much. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Well, no. Fundamental difference is I do not believe Bob Garrett's story, not the campsite, not the supposed conspiracy to shut him down. Therefore, I do not believe anything which is built on any assumption that his story is truthful. You came from law enforcement. Did you assume that one felon vouching for another was telling the truth? I doubt it. I see this as the same. One liar and fraud vouching for the integrity of another or relying on the integrity of another does not count for much. MIB Thanks MIB. A voice of reason amongst this whole mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Well, no. Fundamental difference is I do not believe Bob Garrett's story, not the campsite, not the supposed conspiracy to shut him down. Therefore, I do not believe anything which is built on any assumption that his story is truthful. You came from law enforcement. Did you assume that one felon vouching for another was telling the truth? I doubt it. I see this as the same. One liar and fraud vouching for the integrity of another or relying on the integrity of another does not count for much. MIB Thanks MIB. A voice of reason amongst this whole mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 @MIB: First, Bob Garrett has a reputation for being a good researcher and a good person. Second, Bob Garrett has not spoken publicly (that I know of, anyway) since shortly before the story emerged that he was being threatened. I find Garrett’s silence a little worrying, as it seems some others do, too. If, MIB, your resistance to the idea that something bad happened at the campsite Garrett videotaped stems from your dislike of the demonizing of the hairy people that goes on here and elsewhere, and from your own feelings of connection to the hairy people, I applaud that. I said somewhere here recently that I dislike, intensely, the attempts to portray the hairy people as monsters. I am totally with you there. But I do think, on very rare occasions, bad things do happen – although I would dearly love to know what really happened at that campsite. The reports had it that there were bullets discharged at the site. If those bullets were discharged as part of a pre-emptive attack on a BF that showed up at the site, that’s not good. It’s sooooooo not a good idea to discharge a weapon in the direction of a BF (if one or more BF were present at the site), just like it’s sooooooo not a good idea to discharge one in the direction of a hairless one. Neither type of being enjoys being fired upon, and both types understandably can react aggressively to such an attack. But whatever happened or didn’t happen, Bob Garrett has gone silent, and the person who divulged more information about Garrett’s situation has suddenly come under attack for possibly falsifying information about his own encounter. Very curious -- and very, very dispiriting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 For me Wes and his operation were always going to be put under the microscope as soon as he started charging his 'subscription' fee. Add to this the Garrett red flags and the improbable Government Insider scenario they created. The Sasquatch Chronicles guys weren't undone by shady government forces. They were taken to task by BF enthusiasts like ourselves who noted the red flags and dug just a little deeper. This kind of thing happens on BFF often, so similar behaviour on other forums shouldn't surprise us in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Bob Garrett's wife was being harassed by the police, she would be pulled over for no real reason, hear Bob or Wes tell about that, there have been a lot of things Bob has told Wes and asked wes not to relay it to the public and he holds it back, not sure why, but I think at his age, Bob does not want to go toe to toe with the Govt... HEY EVERYBODY, I passed probation, that was my 76th post and now they "trust" me! If only it could be so easy for Wes...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 @ Leaftalker, I think people can see very easily what’s going on here and that’s is the truth. @Mtyhos, Congrats on your 76th post look into Premium membership! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) What about all of those folks calling in with their sightings? Were they real? Or was that just acting? That guy who had his experience in Burnsville, Ga. was a mighty fine actor if that is the case. Edited April 1, 2015 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 @ Leaftalker, I think people can see very easily what’s going on here and that’s is the truth. @Mtyhos, Congrats on your 76th post look into Premium membership! Ditto! Congratulations. What about all of those folks calling in with their sightings? Were they real? Or was that just acting? That guy who had his experience in Burnsville, Ga. was a mighty fine actor if that is the case. Whatever Germer did or didn't do (and I think it's "didn't do"), he didn't have the power to make other people make things up. If you thought the Burnsville, GA guy was telling the truth, he probably was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suesquach Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Yes thank you Leaftalker, that is exactly the way it appears … does anyone else see that? . I do now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 2000 October 15 Minnesota 5:13A Reporting person was walking his dog around the campsite. They said their dog was ten feet away ahead of its owner at the time when they hear a high pitched scream. The reporting person looks up and sees a “thing†about 30 feet above in a tree. They were scared and turned to run but stopped, it was apparent a second “thing†was on the ground following. The reporting person admits to having to pause their writing, and explains how disturbing it was to hear the pet yelp! The writer says the “thing†in the tree jumps down growling and both creatures commenced to pulling their dog apart. Source: GCBRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) For me Wes and his operation were always going to be put under the microscope as soon as he started charging his 'subscription' fee. Add to this the Garrett red flags and the improbable Government Insider scenario they created. The Sasquatch Chronicles guys weren't undone by shady government forces. They were taken to task by BF enthusiasts like ourselves who noted the red flags and dug just a little deeper. This kind of thing happens on BFF often, so similar behaviour on other forums shouldn't surprise us in the slightest. Sorry Mark Glagow, We agree on the point of that being under scrutiny and that is the bullseye they wore. However, I think it was a combination of both misinformation and disinformation being fed here purposefully and when the proverbial curtain is pulled back, it reveals the real slim shady, and it gets a little uncomfortable for a few. Somehow, somewhere it seems permissible to defame and denounce people with vicious accusations based on the on the flimsiest of evidence and yet, take issue with anyone willing to call it the way it is. Step#1 The undeniable fact of the matter in a sequence of events is that it all occurred when somebody discovered something; he evidently had no business of knowing, videotaped it and placed out for public viewing. None of the accusations of fakery or name calling surfaced until after the fact. Step#2 The facilitator being the radio program, aired the story vowing to do follow ups. Step#3 By then, I submit the seeds were sown and nobody seems to agree on from who or where the first initial message originated with this extraordinary (not) breaking news. And, like a flu or common cold it passed around and through internet like a wild fire and grew legs. Hence, from there it was blind leading the blind calling for dismissal of all things Bigfoot, threats of dropping show membership abounded and so forth, then the defamation starts. It was classical and worked to perfection actually. Nobody was criminally charged and yet, even here you can read of some pretty outrageous charges being levelled on these otherwise total strangers. One more time, nobody was ever charged with anything. While I concede something appears amiss; I am not saying to believe and support hoaxes either but we cannot join a chorus mob in calling out people by name without any substantiated charges that is what I don’t buy into. Who gave anyone preeminence to determine right or wrong, guilt or innocence and pass judgment? Here's where I disagree most vigorously, this whole idea of gasping like a fish out of water as we have seen when these things are brought to the forefront is disingenuous and appalling to Bigfoot research. When given a moment, when considering each step along the way in this controversy people will see the what's really at play here. It's there in plain sight, and it may not always be the way (we, us, they, you and me) want it to be. Edited April 1, 2015 by Gumshoeye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Wish I had 17 gazillion billion pluses to give you, Gumshoeye. You deserve that many, and more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Wish I had 17 gazillion billion pluses to give you, Gumshoeye. You deserve that many, and more. I am humbled by your thoughtfulness thank you, but I should tell you how much I admire your steadfastness and calm demeanor that flows in your responses. I’ve read each and every one of them. I know I mentioned similar accolades to a few others here despite our differences but you stand head shoulders right there along with them too! Plusses right back at you my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts