Campsite Destroyed

[Cisco]

Gum

 

I don’t believe any federal agent would appreciate their personal name posted on a forum or You Tube … just saying. If you did it against their wishes you are dealing with something you simply will continue to not understand.  At the very least, you will be one making that claim that yes “I spoke with them or yes they contacted me. They identified themselves to me and presented their credentials.† But my guess is you would not post their name or film such an instance and therefore everybody here would dealing you like you made something up because you couldn’t prove it either. Only you and you alone would know what the conversation entailed and my guess is you wouldn’t share the context either if you’re warned against it.  It’s that plain and simple.

 

I would not expect them to give the names of any federal agents on their show, or make them public on their blog or website. I'm suggesting they ask for identification or credentials in order to establish whether or not, these people are who they say they are. Otherwise, they're simply taking the word of a stranger.

 

Keep in mind, these stories, about the federal agents, are commonly mentioned and discussed on their shows. So obviously, there's no issue with them doing this. It's very common for people to ask for identification when dealing with anybody that identifies themselves as a federal agent. I have never heard them mention that they, or any of their guests, were shown any kind of official credential or badge. This would allow them to identify the agency that's involved with investigating Bigfoot sightings or incidents. If there's some kind of "top secret" reason why they can't name the agency, on the air, then they could, at least, say they did verify the agency is legitimate. Again, they have no problem, reciting these encounters with federal agents, in tremendous details, so it should not be too much to expect anybody to check credentials and verify these people are legitimate.

 

Have you ever identified a federal agent or known a federal agent to identify him or herself questioning somebody about a “mythical creature†that doesn’t exist, otherwise known as a Bigfoot? If someone was destroyed as the man suggested, and agents contacted you and you were told you didn’t see anything my guess is there would another thread started right here dealing with that.

 

Lol...no, I have never had a federal agent ask me about Bigfoot. However, if some random man approached me and identified himself as a federal agent, that was looking into a Bigfoot sighting; I can assure you, I would ask to see his credentials, simply to verify his identity and make sure he was not some sort of nut job.

 

Tone down claims about Bigfoot’s behavior? Really if there are risks wouldn’t you prefer to  know something of them?  I mean why don’t we pass laws banning any discussion of Bigfoot that way nothing positive or negative can be said, and that way out of sight is out of mind. You see evil, you hear no evil and you speak no evil. Really Cisco that makes as much sense as going silent on other wild animals such as bears and wolves and that we should be encouraged to feed them with national messages.

 

You misunderstood my comment. I suggested they "tone" down their claims as to how Bigfoot behave, in general. They often state certain behaviors or characteristics as factual, instead of being theoretical. For example, they describe 4 different types of Bigfoot. This may be an observation but it's certainly not a fact, even among the different "experts" in the Bigfoot community. Maybe there are 4 kinds of Bigfoot but unless they have some method of verifying this, its certainly not a fact. I do think Bigfoot can be potentially dangerous and the public should be aware of this. However, we don't have any verified/ factual incidents of Bigfoot killing anybody in modern times. Again, I happen to think Bigfoot can be very dangerous but I don't state this as fact because nobody is an authority on Bigfoot behavior. Instead of claiming they're right, and other people are wrong, they can simply state they're giving their opinion and the reason why they have this opinion. It's all about being credible and claiming things to be fact, without any form of verification, reduces credibility and weakens their message.

 

Once again, it’s very plain and simple if you think that is way things should be done or could try it sometime and see what it gets you. There are reasons for the way are done that we (you or I and everyone else) cannot see or understand.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying with this last comment? Are you saying that Bigfoot agents don't show identification or credentials because they're so secret that not even other agencies know about them? If this is the case, we're getting way out there and yes, you're correct, I can't comprehend, anybody, simply believing a stranger, about being a Bigfoot agent, without any form of identification. However, I may be interested in selling them some bridges that I own

[SWWASAS]

I would be inclined to think that someone who comes around asking about BF is probably a researcher trying to get the scoop on some active area. He very well might like you to think he is a federal agent, hints at it so you will talk to him, but never produces any ID. Is that what is going on here? Throw in a couple of people that think the feds are watching all of us, then you have the perfect mixture. The other factor is that if some secret federal agency is looking into this, they would never come around asking questions. They would monitor phones, monitor emails, tail you, bug your house and car, put a GPS tracker on the car, and keep you under surveillance rather that tell you they are watching you.

[Guest]

I don't know if there are any federal agents investigating bigfoot sightings but there have been other stories involving unexplained encounters when a government agent of some kind came and questioned witness and in some cases intimidated them to not speak about the said incident. Such as ufo/ alien encounters.

[Cisco]

SS, I can imagine that agents could be intimidating enough, to cause you to not talk about something. However, these guys are talking about their BF encounters, and BF secret agent encounters, quite a bit. I think they're just adding flavor to the story, in order to gain more listeners. If they had really run into agents, and been intimidated, they would not be talking at all.

[Guest]

Sas Chron hit an iceberg. 3-6 months. Just wondering if any new good shows will arise. There have been some good shows that are gone, Bigfoot Tonight, Minnesota Bigfoot, now Sas Chronicles.

[Guest]

Gum

 

I don’t believe any federal agent would appreciate their personal name posted on a forum or You Tube … just saying. If you did it against their wishes you are dealing with something you simply will continue to not understand.  At the very least, you will be one making that claim that yes “I spoke with them or yes they contacted me. They identified themselves to me and presented their credentials.† But my guess is you would not post their name or film such an instance and therefore everybody here would dealing you like you made something up because you couldn’t prove it either. Only you and you alone would know what the conversation entailed and my guess is you wouldn’t share the context either if you’re warned against it.  It’s that plain and simple.

 

I would not expect them to give the names of any federal agents on their show, or make them public on their blog or website. I'm suggesting they ask for identification or credentials in order to establish whether or not, these people are who they say they are. Otherwise, they're simply taking the word of a stranger.

 

Keep in mind, these stories, about the federal agents, are commonly mentioned and discussed on their shows. So obviously, there's no issue with them doing this. It's very common for people to ask for identification when dealing with anybody that identifies themselves as a federal agent. I have never heard them mention that they, or any of their guests, were shown any kind of official credential or badge. This would allow them to identify the agency that's involved with investigating Bigfoot sightings or incidents. If there's some kind of "top secret" reason why they can't name the agency, on the air, then they could, at least, say they did verify the agency is legitimate. Again, they have no problem, reciting these encounters with federal agents, in tremendous details, so it should not be too much to expect anybody to check credentials and verify these people are legitimate.

 

Pardon the font color people; I just want to be able to ensure this doesn’t get too confused with my prior posting.  People are rightfully intimidated by federal agents. What I am suggesting is I don’t know about “top secret†but what I am proposing is that for a creature that doesn’t exist, or least acknowledged publicly I am not certain if that gentleman spoke with somebody acting in an official capacity or quasi-unofficial.

 

It’s apparent some agency was working the creature or became interested in what somebody observed based on what the gentleman told radio host. If the deputy or officer who was also contacted by them he may also who they but like the gentleman before him neither even hinted at that or their names did he?  I’m just asking Cisco, I don’t know.

 

I am not sure if it was this thread or another but I thought somebody mentioned (BLM) Bureau of Land Management. I don’t know this to fact though.

 

Have you ever identified a federal agent or known a federal agent to identify him or herself questioning somebody about a “mythical creature†that doesn’t exist, otherwise known as a Bigfoot? If someone was destroyed as the man suggested, and agents contacted you and you were told you didn’t see anything my guess is there would another thread started right here dealing with that.

 

Lol...no, I have never had a federal agent ask me about Bigfoot. However, if some random man approached me and identified himself as a federal agent, that was looking into a Bigfoot sighting; I can assure you, I would ask to see his credentials, simply to verify his identity and make sure he was not some sort of nut job.

 

Tone down claims about Bigfoot’s behavior? Really if there are risks wouldn’t you prefer to  know something of them?  I mean why don’t we pass laws banning any discussion of Bigfoot that way nothing positive or negative can be said, and that way out of sight is out of mind. You see evil, you hear no evil and you speak no evil. Really Cisco that makes as much sense as going silent on other wild animals such as bears and wolves and that we should be encouraged to feed them with national messages.

 

You misunderstood my comment. I suggested they "tone" down their claims as to how Bigfoot behave, in general. They often state certain behaviors or characteristics as factual, instead of being theoretical. For example, they describe 4 different types of Bigfoot. This may be an observation but it's certainly not a fact, even among the different "experts" in the Bigfoot community. Maybe there are 4 kinds of Bigfoot but unless they have some method of verifying this, its certainly not a fact. I do think Bigfoot can be potentially dangerous and the public should be aware of this. However, we don't have any verified/ factual incidents of Bigfoot killing anybody in modern times. Again, I happen to think Bigfoot can be very dangerous but I don't state this as fact because nobody is an authority on Bigfoot behavior. Instead of claiming they're right, and other people are wrong, they can simply state they're giving their opinion and the reason why they have this opinion. It's all about being credible and claiming things to be fact, without any form of verification, reduces credibility and weakens their message.

 

Regarding four different Bigfoot types of Bigfoot being an observation and not a fact …. Well… I think I’ll have to agree you again Cisco, I look at a Chihuahua and a Great Dane and wonder how they can be the same species and yet different types … Just saying.  I do most certainly believe there is more than one type of Bigfoot but whether there are four or ten I suppose it doesn’t much matter and I cannot argue with you.  In so far as Bigfoot killing anybody in modern times isn’t one time enough just asking … But we can agree that four types of Bigfoot are theoretical and not a fact, how can you know unequivocally there hasn’t been killings in modern times?

 

I don't know if there are any federal agents investigating bigfoot sightings but there have been other stories involving unexplained encounters when a government agent of some kind came and questioned witness and in some cases intimidated them to not speak about the said incident. Such as ufo/ alien encounters.

 

Good post SS, and thanks for reminding me. Yes I have read reports purportedly made by anonymous federal agents and they’re usually pretty good ones too though they tell you straight up it’s “an anonymous report.† If anyone gets a chance go look through some of John Green’s early reports pay special attention to the witness information if you can find it.

 

I worked as a federal task force agent. Sometimes there are reasons people don’t know about or understand that occur. Sometimes there are reasons for the way they are done.  Good post Cisco, thank you!

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, it’s very plain and simple if you think that is way things should be done or could try it sometime and see what it gets you. There are reasons for the way are done that we (you or I and everyone else) cannot see or understand.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying with this last comment? Are you saying that Bigfoot agents don't show identification or credentials because they're so secret that not even other agencies know about them? If this is the case, we're getting way out there and yes, you're correct, I can't comprehend, anybody, simply believing a stranger, about being a Bigfoot agent, without any form of identification. However, I may be interested in selling them some bridges that I own

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sas Chron hit an iceberg. 3-6 months. Just wondering if any new good shows will arise. There have been some good shows that are gone, Bigfoot Tonight, Minnesota Bigfoot, now Sas Chronicles.

 

Thanks Wag, I’ll have to catch one of those newer shows and see if the quality has diminished any with all the changes of late.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Cisco]

As I mentioned, Sas Chron has had some excellent shows with amazing witness encounters. Many of the witnesses were very genuine and able to relate, without any kind of prejudice, what they observed. Episode 10, about a hunters encounter, is a perfect example of this.

 

I'd like to see them remove all the negative commentary about other organizations and researchers, and focus on the encounters. It's when they wander off into the discussions of what they know to be true and what nobody else knows, that they get stuck in the mud. It's their show and they're welcome to express their opinions but need to be careful to distinguish opinion from fact, especially since many of their listeners and witnesses are new to the subject of Bigfoot.

[Guest]

Oh, man, just scrolling through older other Blogtalk shows. Man, the BS is like, miles high. I am re-evaluating all the blogtalks I can even try to listen to, the BS meter is going through the roof on some of these hoaxers, liars, book-sellers, etc...\

 

Really, I would almost like to start a Hoaxer thread, but it would be very controversial. This guy is an 'semi-known author', and its just all BS.

 

I would also re-evaluate Sas-Chronicles other than the one I pointed out a few months ago. What if 50% of all of these are just pure BS?

[Guest]

@ Cisco & Wag - Thank you both for sharing your observations.  And so they (Sasquatch Chronicles) make their moves, some say manipulate this issue and that, and keep things at a high boil, so what’s the problem? The question remains then, how can it be that simple? We cannot prove a Bigfoot exists based on fact yet we can somehow tell when people are liars and easily identify hoaxes without facts …. ?

[Guest]

Obviously, it will be somewhat subjective. Actually, looking at Sas Chron webpage, they disbelieve the Colorado Goat-lady story. I believe it, because its not too wild or crazy, etc. So, results will vary, depending on individuals. But, this would be individuals bringing up what looks like obvious stories, if this gets going, which it probably won't?

 

But, as I relisten to older blogtalks, its not looking good. Its a giant manure pile.

[chelefoot]

Oh, man, just scrolling through older other Blogtalk shows. Man, the BS is like, miles high. I am re-evaluating all the blogtalks I can even try to listen to, the BS meter is going through the roof on some of these hoaxers, liars, book-sellers, etc...\

 

Really, I would almost like to start a Hoaxer thread, but it would be very controversial. This guy is an 'semi-known author', and its just all BS.

 

I would also re-evaluate Sas-Chronicles other than the one I pointed out a few months ago. What if 50% of all of these are just pure BS?

You could always start a thread giving your OPINION of these things. We really shouldn't call something a hoax without facts to back up that claim. I mean, that's what we expect skeptics to do when they call "Hoax!", so we need to be sure to adhere to that same standard as proponents calling something a hoax in my opinion.

 

 The question remains then, how can it be that simple? We cannot prove a Bigfoot exists based on fact yet we can somehow tell when people are liars and easily identify hoaxes without facts …. ?

Right. Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or proponent, arguing for or against the evidence, I think when we make definitive statements about anything related to this subject, we should have facts to back up our claims. IMO

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I've written this on the Poll thread about the big foot community examining hoaxes, until there is a consensus on Big Foot behavior, and until there is universally agreed upon criteria for debunking accounts, then any type of debunking organization will lack credibility and authority because it will be wholly subjective.

 

one of the ways to establish a standard on Big Foot behavior is to analyze ALL the recorded sightings. For example, look at the number of sightings that are nocturnal and diurnal, from those numbers you can statistically predict the probability of when the creature is active. None of this "well, I think a creature like that would rarely, if ever, go out in the daylight because it just increases their chance of being caught. So I think anytime someone sees one during the day, it's bogus because I think they are nocturnal for the reasons I stated." <-----that's too subjective, too opinionated, and too non-factually based to be regarded with any degree of seriousness or legitimacy.

 

If this debunking endeavor is to be done "scientifically", then do it scientifically through the analysis of ALL available data and through statistical models. And it has to be of ALL the data: cherry-picking data is a no-no and leads to faulty analysis and faulty conclusions, which can potentially damage long term studies.

[Guest]

Not sure how you do this scientifically. Its more like looking for specific patterns which I have already outlined. This is not really about BFRO reports, but Blogtalk talkers who spew huge flaming piles of BS.

 

And it will be subjective to whomever looks at which storie(s). BUT, as I have stated, there is a huge flaming pile of Blogtalk BS. Needs to be called out, says me.

 

I guess I'm thinking of looking for the ''low hanging fruit'' here. Obvious signs of nonsense. The Blogtalk I was listening to last night would be an excellent example:

 

You think this guy is straight up?

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/midnightwalkers/2014/04/17/thom-cantrall--washington-author

 

Edited April 23, 2015 by Wag

[Guest]

The average person can be told just about anything and will not question the authority or identity of the requester.  But, I would expect someone actively involved in BF research to at least demand to see credentials.  Whether or not they shared that information with others later is another matter. The whole "two mysterious guys showed up and told me to bug off and I don't know who they were" thing throws up red flags.  And the agencies involved change from DOI, to DOA, to DHS.  Or my favorite, everyone including the ATFE and DEA were there!  Not gonna happen for Sasquatch, but may for a marijuana grow or meth. house.

[Guest]

^^^^

In retrospect, I believe the substance of the initial message was a bit too cryptic but its meaning understood nevertheless.  As I researched and studied the topic of strategies for many years, I find it remarkable how close in resemblance and tactics employed today by somebody are eerily similar to the edicts of the XXXXX. Demonstrative illustrations of [somebody] their masterful skill should be obvious in the message in the previous postings.

 

The most stunning part of the information is not just that a Campsite Destroyed is or wasn’t connected to bigfoot or that accounts of missing persons which may or may not have risen in recent years or that individuals may or may not have hoaxed the entire event, all of which appeared to be purposeful subterfuge meant to distract, the main point to all this was overlooked.

 

Similarities of roadblocks employed or reportedly used and in play as documented in Missing 411 and this SC incident are relevant and mostly overlooked, lost in discussion were all so beautifully developed. The notion that Individuals wishing to report such things are repeatedly meeting staunch objections is incredible.

 

Particularly the use of stonewalling and intimidation are sample methods from a repertoire of strategies recognized, and the employment of deception as key to their art is very disturbing for me and should also be as disconcerting to enthusiasts as well.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Gumshoeye