Campsite Destroyed

[Guest]

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

Dont believe everything Wes says. I always thought it was weird that his bro Woody wasnt on the show much. Now i think its because he couldnt be bothered to keep telling a lie in hopes of $

[SWWASAS]

Gumshoeye: I have reread your post several times trying to read through the lines. Let me throw something on the table to consider. Have you considered the possibility that something is behind this other than a bunch of mean people trying to sabotage a radio show? You present this as some sort of vendetta by judgmental members of the public at large, including probably myself. As you mentioned, it seemed to be "blind leading the blind calling for dismissing all things Bigfoot - - - then the defamation starts. It was classical and worked to perfection". To me that sort of perfection suggests skilled organizations who know how to run disinformation programs rather than some sort of public rabble who just happened to come up with an effective method to shut things down. Rabbles rarely do anything with perfection. With that sort of thing in play, it matters little if the show had any basis of truth. Because if the radio show was effective in getting the word out, it could have been considered a threat by certain factions.

Edited April 1, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[LeafTalker]

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.

 

I haven’t always been calm, but I’m learning… But thanks for those kind words, and for YOUR steadfastness -- and your generosity and fairness. Makes me happy and hopeful. Thanks.  

 

P.S. SWWASP, yeah! I don't want to speak for other people, but yeah, I think that's exactly what Gumshoeye has been saying: that there is a BIG "something" behind this. It very, VERY much looks like the show very much DID look like a "threat" to "certain factions". So, yeah. Spot on. Exactly right. In my opinion, anyway. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by LeafTalker

[MarkGlasgow]

Really nice post GS. Much to admire in your words but I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this one.

Like it or not we pass judgment often. On this forum we are especially good at rooting out what doesn't add up. That may be unpalatable to you but thankfully it's how we roll.

On this subject I am only interested in the facts. If folks want to make themselves feel better by insinuating that there is some sinister government conspiracy behind Germer's downfall then knock yourself out.

I would however suggest that peddling this wild theory as if it's a truth will be uncomfortable for many.

[SWWASAS]

I didn't mention government.

[Guest]

Gumshoeye: I have reread your post several times trying to read through the lines. Let me throw something on the table to consider. Have you considered the possibility that something is behind this other than a bunch of mean people trying to sabotage a radio show? You present this as some sort of vendetta by judgmental members of the public at large, including probably myself. As you mentioned, it seemed to be "blind leading the blind calling for dismissing all things Bigfoot - - - then the defamation starts. It was classical and worked to perfection". To me that sort of perfection suggests skilled organizations who know how to run disinformation programs rather than some sort of public rabble who just happened to come up with an effective method to shut things down. Rabbles rarely do anything with perfection. With that sort of thing in play, it matters little if the show had any basis of truth. Because if the radio show was effective in getting the word out, it could have been considered a threat by certain factions.

 

Thanks for asking SWWWSAS – Here’s what I think, I may be off point nevertheless this is how I see it, we can discuss and talk about something that still earns rebuke and ridicule from the general public and media takes their crack at the piñata too! It’s all meant for gags and giggles in spite of growing numbers of public who themselves have encountered something or know someone who has. We can talk and discuss this topic but if you cross the Rubicon you will know when enough is enough.

 

You want my opinion right? Here it is by the numbers as succinctly as I am able:

 

I also think it was a succession of blunders that caused the whole Hee Haw. The unwitting individual blundered by making the discovery, placing it on open media and we know the rest. It was about damage control at its finest, and so what if someone was frightened or threatened and maybe somebody else experienced let us say …  a little misfortune along the way, it was only collateral damage. It was a means to justify an end and the end being putting the whole affair to rest quickly and quietly as possible without any further damage.

 

Think about it, you want to shut somebody up real quick, you dig into their past and find something … anything, any skeletons laying around in that old closet and you dangle it before them like the Monroe Doctrine “Carrot and Stick,†your choice. That will usually do it for a lot people! Privacy laws being what there are now, it costs money and requires good resources to do that type of research. Some call it opposition hunts or research.

 

You employ an anonymous blogger they post online and quickly fade off the board and nobody is the wiser. Somebody else comes along finds and reads the message “Oh my Gee Gee,†and they want to be the first person to repost what they just read that somebody said they read from a friend who said they read it from somebody who says they got it from somebody else who told somebody else and they told somebody they heard from it somebody else. When the dust settles you ask well, let's see who planted that original post but nobody where or who the somebody was but it doesn't matter because the seed was sown. The damage is done and don’t unring the bell at that point.  IMHO

Edited April 1, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

Really nice post GS. Much to admire in your words but I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this one.

Like it or not we pass judgment often. On this forum we are especially good at rooting out what doesn't add up. That may be unpalatable to you but thankfully it's how we roll.

On this subject I am only interested in the facts. If folks want to make themselves feel better by insinuating that there is some sinister government conspiracy behind Germer's downfall then knock yourself out.

I would however suggest that peddling this wild theory as if it's a truth will be uncomfortable for many.

 

Thank you for being a gentleman too. It’s okay to disagree on some issue though I am certain we agree more things than we’ll ever admit … We do come from vastly different parts and our life experiences may have led down different paths but I certainly enjoy your posts and learned a lot from them too!  J

[Guest Divergent1]

Then why didn't that happen to Paulides? 

[Guest]

Really nice post GS. Much to admire in your words but I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this one.

Like it or not we pass judgment often. On this forum we are especially good at rooting out what doesn't add up. That may be unpalatable to you but thankfully it's how we roll.

On this subject I am only interested in the facts. If folks want to make themselves feel better by insinuating that there is some sinister government conspiracy behind Germer's downfall then knock yourself out.

I would however suggest that peddling this wild theory as if it's a truth will be uncomfortable for many.

 

I am not certain if I did peddle anything about sinister government since I don’t know how you inferred that? If I said that please point it out and I’ll stand corrected.  Inserting words like serves to change the whole meaning of what was said. I don’t know whose behind it and really don’t care to know whose behind it other than to point out what it appears it to be and why. If I did please point it out, so we can clear up the confusion.   

Then why didn't that happen to Paulides? 

 

That is a good question Divergent1 ….

Edited April 2, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Bonehead74]

What I don't understand is why Mr. Garrett has gone silent. The best thing he could do to protect himself and his family (assuming, of course, that he actually has some decent evidence to back up his claims) is to go public, like big-time. Issue statements to flood all local and national news outlets, every bigfoot/paranormal/anomalous/crime/conspiracy website and forum. Get out in the public eye, make a big noise about the cover-up. Raise a stink so big that you can't be "disappeared". Going on the offensive big enough and fast enough is how you deal with bureaucratic thuggery. Instead, he's gone dark. That leads me to think that if what he claims is true, then they must have something legitimate and potentially damning on him to use as leverage.

 

 

ETA- Could someone more familiar with the case please explain why exactly we believe bigfoot is the culprit in the first place?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

The main problem with the case in hand is that it is pretty messy. I would think the Squatches would be more discreet and secretive if they were going to disappear some humans. This case goes AGAINST the information that Paulides  prints in his books, BF generally do not make messes of killing humans so others can discover the mess, according to the information out there.

 

That is at least one very good reason to suspect the story. There is too much"" lookey lookey me, Im a bigfoot manly man" garbage going on out there.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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?

 

 

This is based wholly on what I saw on Garrett's youtube site and listened to on his radio blog. The violent BF reports were the minority.  There was a vid of a nighttime investigation where he and his son see eye shine and hear the sound of snapping wood (I could hear the pops) and a stick is thrown at Garrett and hits his arm. In a couple of his vids/radio blogs he relates how he and his son sort of formed a relationship (I use this terms VERY loosely) with a female BF. She tolerated them in her territory and they would leave her things like fruit and toys. She left the area one day. In one of the later vids he showed  that BF's territory and some "signs" that another BF or perhaps the same one was living there. There was a vid of him and his son fishing near the torn up camp (some months after the incident): no BFs but they say in the vid they can smell BF BO. Most of the vids had pics of footprints, tree structures, etc.

 

He had trail cams set up around the Sam Houston National Forest. and posted vids of BFs (I can't see 'eye shine' on pics and vids so it's futile asking me if I saw any BF images on his trail cam vids).  He did a really interesting vid about what can BFs eat in Texas (no, chili and BBQ weren't on the menu he proposed) and he went through a detailed list of the edible wild vegetation in that area of Texas. And he had a few non-BF vids like an old cemetery somewhere in Mississippi or Tennessee. And it was either on his youtube channel or his radio blog that he did a piece on BF migration  through his section of Texas.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

ETA- Could someone more familiar with the case please explain why exactly we believe bigfoot is the culprit in the first place?

 

Garrett finds a torn up camp; tent wrecked, supplies thrown around, what looks to be blood on the ground, etc.  He also shoots footage of the vegetation: broken trees/tree limbs and a very distinct X made by two broken trees. He calls the cops because he thinks it's a crime scene. Allegedly, Garrett finds signs that something was dragged into the brush, and the amount and degree of damage done to and around the campsite leads him to believe a human couldn't do it. He films what he's seen. The next morning he returns to the site. The park staff is cleaning up the site, removing things, pouring sand over the blood spots, etc. He films how it looked after the clean up. He posts the vids. And is told to take them down because it's being investigated as an active crime scene.

 

Here's where it get murky, imo.......

 

Garrett gets charges with interfering with a  criminal investigation and some other charges. He is forced to take the vid down. There's allegedly some legal wrangling and he is allowed to put up an edited version of the vid. (This is the vid I saw). And he puts up the morning after vid. He and his family are harassed by local law enforcement.

 

Wes Germer gets involved by having Garrett on his show and discussing the torn up camp. Wes adds more to the story: 3 hunters/campers. Two are dead, stuffed in trees. One in hospital having a breakdown, murmuring "monsters, monsters". Law enforcement trying to pin the murders on the hospitalized guy.  Garrett's harrassment continues (youtube shut down, unable to access his blogspot radio site, things erased from his PC, etc.)

[Guest]

^^^

@ Bonehead, some people are just not hard wired like that because we’re all so uniquely different. If you are confronted by danger, you, me and everyone else quickly draw on two choices: A. Fight, B. Flight. It’s your choice. You can stand and fight or submit and surrender. Knowing where the threat is one thing but it’s the unknown that man fears most.

 

@ Wag, aren’t they (SC situation and Missing Person411) both similar in mystique yet vastly different approaches?

 

The Missing 411 author does not label it Bigfoot, he draws the inference by laying out the picture, the circumstances surrounding each case and by everything you know or read, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so it must be a ….. he stops short of calling it anything and allows you the reader to insert the word not him.

 

In the SC case the unwitting innocent inadvertently discovers something and places a video up on a web site and suddenly him and anyone close to it becomes a tainted well of sorts. Now this gag and giggle bigfoot thing is turned on its head, and we all know the rest of the story.

 

@ Chasing Rabbits, sounds like you done pretty well fitting the pieces together as well ...    

Edited April 2, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

^^^^^ What Chasing Rabbit said was my take as well. Somewhere between the initial filming of the torn up camp and the harassment for disturbing an alleged crime scene things seemed to take on a life of their own and turned into BF destroyed a camp and killed campers. The only thing I would add is that on the podcast talking about this with Bob, Wes issued a challenge to whoever/TPTB to "bring it on" and come after him. When I heard that I knew it was merely a matter of time. I was surprised truthfully that it took as long as it did.

I am not one to jump in with the mob and I try to think for myself. It is just one big ugly mess now but I think Gumshoeye has made some excellent points. JMO