Campsite Destroyed

[Guest diana swampbooger]

I saw all 3 of Bob Garrett's 'Torn Up Camp' vids from last summer.  Saw all of it.  

 

What makes yall  think he doesn't have backup?

 

You guys are funny.

[Guest]

I saw all 3 of Bob Garrett's 'Torn Up Camp' vids from last summer.  Saw all of it.  

 

What makes yall  think he doesn't have backup?

 

You guys are funny.

 

I’d like to understand your point. What makes you think that backup videos are beyond comprehension here?

Gum, I have not looked for episode 68 on Youtube but it's not on the menu for SC pod casts. I can't remember why they removed it but it was removed by Wes/ Woody. I do remember somebody saying it was removed because a lot of the info on that episode was contradictory. I can't really attest to this but it rings a bell.

 

The stories told by Bob Garret actually pale in comparison to the stories related by Wes, Woody, Will and the retired deputy "Jack", about the mysterious government operatives that often show up when there's been a Bigfoot related incident. There are two of these government operatives, and although they always show up, nobody EVER asks them for ID's or badges? I suppose they must be very intimidating? One of the operatives is very clean cut and friendly, while the other one looks like he could be a "biker."

 

The retired deputy, Jack, has a wide array of stories related to the government showing up when a Bigfoot makes an appearance. Of course, Jack himself is comical in what he says, although he does not mean to be. He portrays himself as the "lone wolf" law enforcement officer that does not put up with the "Feds." On one episode, he referred to his town's black population as "coloreds." I thought I'd misheard it so I had to rewind and listen to it again. Wes and Will just ignored the comment but it made my jaw drop.

 

Where do they find these guys? I'm already looking forward to the shows with the enigmatic Mr. Black!

 

Bob Garret is an amateur compared to some of the other guests. Which may be why he's stepped up with wilder and more insane stories. There's some tough competition on SC and you'd better have some good stories if you want to stay in the game...

 

^^^

While I agree competition appears rigid, I am not so certain people are lining up to video record something to the degree that one guest had for whatever reason. The “Lonewolf†hasn’t said much about the campfire incident has he?

Edited April 14, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[LeafTalker]

Diana, some of us are tired of the endless, mindless mud-slinging that goes on here and have been trained to expect the worst. But from a certain perspective, the mud-slinging IS comical. Is that what you meant? 

 

I know people who know Bob Garrett and speak highly of him, and nothing that I've seen or heard here or elsewhere suggests they're mistaken. I think they're 100% right, that he's a good guy. 

 

Is that the direction you were headed in? I, like Gumshoeye, am curious to know your thoughts. 

[Guest]

Not to rock the boat, but people who meet/met Rick Dyer say he's a ''good guy'' also, likeable, etc.

 

-This thread is about possible hoaxing, and perhaps the signs of who could be hoaxing, and why, because one major Bigfoot show was probably caught in a big-ol-hoax.

 

-Although, this doesn't seem to be a hot-topic, it should be.  With all the info out there, one can easily construct BF stories, the stories need to be looked at more closely with all the attention BF is getting at the moment.

 

-There was a ''dogman'' or werewolf story that was hoaxed because the guy wanted to keep the people in fear, after a DJ did a song about dogman, its a ''famous'' hoaxing film, and yes, its film, 8mm, from Wisconson. Eh, Hoaxing deserves its own sticky thread, so people can post in there as stories come out.

[LeafTalker]

Sorry to disagree with you Wag (and you know I often agree with you), but this thread was never about hoaxing. It was started to examine other reports about torn-up campsites, in addition to Garrett’s report.

 

Also don’t agree it’s a good idea to focus on hoaxing. You become what you pursue. Why not pursue beauty and truth, and become that, instead?

 

WSA said it really well a few days ago in the Tree Manipulation thread (http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41129-tree-manipulation-wood-structures-what-is-the-evidence/page-24#entry899890):

 

“Endlessly chasing after the next hoax perpetrator is certainly exhilarating for some of us, but it accomplishes exactly bupkiss for advancing the general knowledge in this field. You won't see any serious researcher spending much time doing it. They are too busy looking at the much bigger picture. Try it, it is pretty fun. Instead, if you want to burn up your time staffing the Hoax Police, by all means go with your flow, but my point was only it serves mostly to keep [people] from sharing interesting stuff on this site.†(Emphasis mine. -- LT)

[Bonehead74]

Truth is beauty, and a lie (hoax) is ugliness. Should we not strive tirelessly to create and nurture an environment where truth can freely flourish by exposing and then removing the malignancies that are built from the lies of hoaxers?

Edited April 14, 2015 by Bonehead74

[LeafTalker]

Great question, Bonehead, and the answer is, no.

You don't arrive at 'truth' by repressing and repelling. Good things come from the joyous expression of the heart, which, for many here, means the indulging of a great and powerful interest in the enduring mystery that is Sasquatch. You don't get to the heart of mystery through criticism, censure, and control.

We all know that being a control freak is not healthy, and that's all that the campaign against hoaxing is: a desperate attempt to control. Leave people be. They're not hurting anyone. They only hurt our pride, and pride is not our most precious resource. Almost anything else is more deserving of protection than pride.

Always focus on what you want, not on what you don't want. What you want then flourishes, and everything else dies away.

Edited April 14, 2015 by LeafTalker

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Since we're talking about the SC episodes, SC episode 34 Garrett says this beginning at the 70: 14 mark:

 

"When we first come around that corner on the torn up camp, I was like a lot of the people who have, you know, left comments, you know, they got drunk and they fought. Well you know, that's kind of  what I thought at first too. You know maybe somebody was murdered or something. And you know, I wanted, I wanted to look to see if there was any way we..any aid that needed to  be rendered,  we could do that, call 911, get people out there and everything. And that's one of the reasons I did, you know, did what I did. When I realized, that everything was torn up behind it, I pretty much realized that I don't believe these people got in a big fight. I..I.. I believe these people were attacked. And I do believe it was a 'squatch that did it. Uhhh...that's my belief. And..you know, I found these foot, you know, all those foot prints.. Uhh the person who left was able to, you know, get, fight his way to the truck whatever, and get into it and leave. Apparently the other two just weren't. You know, they just couldn't do it.  they were. Apparently they were hauled off."

 

Garrett opinion on drunken campers destroying their own camp beginning at 76:12:

 

"You know, drunks may pound on each other. you know, some of them might get arrested. And that happens out there, believe me, it happens in most all campgrounds and places. But it happens out there. And, but they're not going to leave brand new  tents, they're not going to leave brand new stoves, you know, they're not going to leave their children's clothes. Uhhh...a brand new sleeping bags. I mean, I'm not, I mean, if I was a drunk and I was out there and had a big fight with somebody, you know, the next morning I'd get up and if I decided to leave, I'd pack my stuff up.  I wouldn't just, you know,  take off and leave. That's what people need to understand. I mean, you know, Uhh, you know a drunk's just not going to leave all that junk,  or all that stuff behind. I wouldn't. That stuff's too expensive."

 

 

Garrett on the "it's a bear" theory (77: 28 mark)

 

"There's very few bears in that area. i mean if you see a bear in 20 years, you're lucky."

 

Garrett on "no sign Sasquatch did it" (77:41 mark)

 

"Well, I have to tell you. Did you see the footprints that I was trying to show? If those weren't sasquatch foot prints, I don't know what they were. A a giant must have been walking around out there."

 

He also states around the 79:16 mark that while they were videoing that night, they were hearing "lip blows" and breathing and eye shine in the wooded area.

 

IIRC episode 68 was Wes recounting what Bob Garrett told him about the harassment.  If Wes is an unreliable historian for his own encounter, then EVERYTHING Wes says about his encounter, about Bob Garrett's harassment, or anyone's encounter should also be scrutinized for its accuracy and truthfulness.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

My bad...the Bob Garrett update is episode 70. It's still up on the blogspot radio site.

[Guest]

There are lots of stories about ''new tents and equipment'' being ''left'' in certain (squatchy) camping areas.  And these were all brand new also, not ''used''.(?) Just a point, that the stuff ''just came off the shelf''.

 

Whatever, its all still up in the air on this one.

[Cisco]

I understand the comments and concerns about always focusing on the hoaxing. Personally, I'd rather discuss compelling evidence. However, one of the main problems, we all have, as BF enthusiasts, is the lack of credibility caused by hoaxers and other people with outlandish claims they can't substantiate. I never question a sighting report because I have no way of knowing its authenticity.

There is a huge difference between a sighting report and what's happened with Sasquatch Chronicles. They've gone from featuring sighting reports to a whole new level of claims.

In short, if they are to be believed, they are the authorities in all the different types of Sasquatch. All of these animals are dangerous. The government has a dedicated team of people that cover up any Sasquatch incidents and have been doing so for a long time. In fact, these government agents also listen to the show. These agents have focused on suppressing Bob Garret and harass him, his team and his family. If not for these agents, they would have video and other proof of these creatures.

While I agree that Sasquatch are potentially dangerous, I don't believe them to be as dangerous as these people claim.

I have also looked at Bob Garrets experience and research. Only recently has he made these extraordinary claims. He has not always told stories like these. What changed? When did he go from being a run of the mill BF researcher to a guy that has tons of dangerous encounters with BFs and secret agents?

These are extraordinary claims, way beyond what other researchers have experienced. Maybe I'm behind the times. Have other people here had run ins with these federal BF agents? I mean direct run ins and not stories from other people.

[coffee2go]

Cosco,

Thats sounds like a topic for a whole new thread.

[Guest]

Explorer, I download a number of pod casts and listen when I have time, so I can’t even say if it’s still available on pod cast or not.  I think the main episode topic was Dogmen or something, but when Wes started giving details about his encounter, I perked up and jotted down what he said.  I hope it helped sort things out.

 

As for the conspiracy stuff in general, it just gives me heartburn.  The two guys who are supposed to show up every time and play good cop/bad cop?  In one report, they were in a minivan with government tags.  Just let me say, if you’re in serious trouble, it won’t show up in an office pool minivan.  Also, feds, state and locals don’t always play nice with each other.  A sheriff is NOT going to roll over because someone in another department or agency tells him/her to do it.  The Highway Patrol will not harass you because you angered the Forest Service.  I don’t discount people’s stories, but when it contradicts what I know, it raises doubts.  This isn’t directed at Bob Garrett.  There are plenty of outlandish conspiracy stories on SC.  I love the one where the “current cop†is talking about how he stands up to the feds until his boss makes him play nice, but he still pulls them over.  Then, they try to hire him because of his skills, at a GS-9 grade no less.  That’s barely a step above entry level for many jobs; much less these supposed MIB gigs.  He adds that he heard a click during the show and that is how he knows the line is “tappedâ€.  Hmmm…wiretap a radio show.  Great idea!

[Guest]

The top of Yacolt Mountain is 1.5 miles North of the Lewis River.    Access by road to the Yacolt Mountain area is from the West or from the East out of Yacolt not from the Lewis River.    No road runs from the river to Yacolt Mountain in that area.      The nearest campground to Yacolt Mountain is about 4 miles away.      That is Battle Ground State Park to the SW.    I would not even associate this with the Lewis River since it is not anywhere near it.      Sunset Falls campground on the Lewis River is  about 9 miles from Yacolt Mountain  nearer the coordinates they provided for the sighting location which is on FR 4205 about 2 miles from the campground.       The State Forest land in the area is being heavily logged but at the sighting coordinates there is no nearby clear cut.  (Sighting location pictures published previously in this thread.)   At this point, I can assume one of two things:    1.   It really happened and they had no idea where they were, and just started throwing out geographical names telling the story.   2.   It never happened and they made up the story using foggy recollections they had of the area.     In either case, the geographical problems with their story do nothing to give it any credibility.       I will add that they should never tell that story in my presence, it might be very embarrassing for them.  

I was hoping you would see this info and check it against the location.  Wes was quite clear about the clear cutting and believed it was to "cleanse" the area IIRC.  Thanks for following up on this.

[MarkGlasgow]

Interesting Wag. This is ALL about hoaxing or elaboration. I don't care how you want to label it. It's all about contortion and manipulation.

Some of the same folks that are backing Garrett here are the very same guys who I battled on The infamous Dyer thread a few years ago. I'll be a gentleman an not name names....

You would think folks would have learned from their bitter experiences by now.