Campsite Destroyed

[SWWASAS]

SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

Your blue "muppet" had surgery done almost like a red stuffed teddy bear that I left at the gifting area.  They left it for me exactly on the logs and rock where I left them gifts.  It had surgery on its back and looks amazingly like what you have posted.

 

I believe that they use the same technique on real flesh and blood.  So many reports of deer, horses, dogs being sliced open.  They have very thick fingernails not claws.  Try it yourself, pull a piece of plastic or thin fabric very taut and use your finger nail like a blade, it works.  I've done it.

Certainly looks like it was gutted right where it was. I probably should have bagged it and got it DNA tested. It was really smelly. Then again if I had, might just have gotten unknown primate.

[Guest]

Plus 1 to CR.

 

There are a few critical conditions that determine how most people will react to this case.

-You have to accept the possibility of the critter existing in the first place.

-Then have to accept that they are capable, in every sense of the word, of the activity that is reported to have taken place in that camp.

-Then you have to accept that Garrett has presented an accurate account of what he discovered when he found the camp.

 

If any of the above are absent in your mind, or are otherwise beyond your personal belief set, then you ain't gonna accept this is a legit scenario, and you will define it by the absence of the critical condition(s) that is listed above. This entire thread is a discussion of those critical conditions, and where we stand on them, which dictates which side of the argument we fall on.

There ain't a whole lot of minds being changed in here, folks.

All we can do is evaluate and argue the known factors and wonder about the unknown.

I think this forum is at it's best when we can take a case and do that with serious attention to detail.

 

I accept condition #1

I also see no evidence that would support the conclusion that condition #2 is not possible. No evidence I have ever seen or account I have ever read leads me to eliminate this activity from the capability of the species.

 

Condition 3 is the hiccup. It frequently is. I don't know Garrett personally. I don't know anyone who does. I have seen a couple of video clips with him in them but they are not enough for me to determine whether I believe the man on this story or not.

When a story like this arises someone has put their entire reputation on the line. Media is so wrapped around our lives anymore that there is zero chance of maintaining anonymity when coming forward with a report like this, and there will be people who devote a lot of time to either slamming the story-bringer or lining up to support him.

When I was a kid, about a thousand years ago, integrity and character were almost a given. A man's word were taken seriously.

People who brought shame and ridicule to their family name were shunned, and their lives were not fun as a result.

Today, we seem to have turned 180*, and the concept of shame is dying.

Ultimately, I don't know.

I absolutely believe the event Garrett has brought forth is within the realm of possibility.

I simply am not ready to put my stamp of "Factual" on it at this point.

But I will keep my mind open, and evaluate any new information, and want to know the truth.

[MIB]

When a story like this arises someone has put their entire reputation on the line.

 

I agree with most of what you said but the little voice in the back of my head, after reading this, said "so did Melba Ketchum".  

 

I think the only way to truly understand insanity or delusion are from the inside.  Expecting an irrational person to make rational sense ... doesn't make rational sense.  Somewhere, somehow, the whole idea that someone would hold them responsible for what they say seems to escape.  Narcissism?  Sociopathy?   Where do "standards don't apply to me" and "I can't be held accountable" fall on the scale?

 

MIB

[Cisco]

Don't forget the latest and newest factor in the world of Bigfoot..... FAME

We deal in a topic without real experts so the next person to have a BF show, on TV, is the next real authority on the subject.

Fame has become a big motivation for a number of "researchers" traipsing around, in the woods, with a vide camera and a desire to rack up "views" on YouTube...

[Guest]

I was just looking over this discussion and I can see both sides of the issue.

 

How can we accuse somebody of hoaxing without definite proof? By the same token, should hoaxers be allowed to profit, because we don't have hard proof of their hoaxing?

 

Look at Todd Standing; there's no hard proof that he's a hoaxer. Nobody has produced any evidence. There are plenty of theories of how he may have created the creatures in his videos but there's no hard evidence to the contrary.

 

I think the issue with Sasquatch Chronicles, is that they're making money off their stories. Normally, anybody that relates an outlandish story about Bigfoot, has nothing to gain but attention. In the case of SC, we may not have any hard evidence, but there is a motive, in the form of profits generated from advertising.

 

Wes, Woody and company are in the business of attracting listeners and have built their entire show on the basis of a violent and dangerous Bigfoot. This creates the need to continue with more and better, dangerous encounters. Considering that Bigfoot encounters are not the most common occurrences, not to mention that violent or dangerous encounters are even less frequent; it's easy to understand why many of their claims would be called into question.

 

Can I prove they're hoaxing? NO; but I also can't prove Todd Standing was hoaxing...

 

What has been established, are inconsistencies, from their personal encounter, as well as a series of stories and claims that are beyond extraordinary and cannot be substantiated.

 

What can be proven is they have profited from these stories by increasing their listener base, selling advertising and memberships.

 

It's because of both, the inconsistencies and the money they have made, that the show is being called into question, along with many of their "special" guests.

 

When Wes & Woody had the show, addressing the criticism from the community, they never took the time to clearly explain many of the claims they or their guests had made. Instead, they acted insulted and took a self righteous approach to the questions and accusations. They had the opportunity to set the record straight and decided to play the martyr card instead. This particular episode is what cost them their credibility because they showed their true colors in their attitude towards the community; not to mention the really nasty comment made about Rene Dahinden.

 

We don't have a Bigfoot police and its up to members of this community to ask questions and to hold each other up to a higher standard. One of the reasons, the rest of the world does not take this mystery seriously, is because of the many ludicrous claims that have been made over the years, with no substantiated results. Not too long ago, we had the the "Daisy in the box" story, from a presumably, a very reputable source that ended up being a complete fabrication. Keep in mind that the person responsible for the "daisy in the box" hoax, had been posting outlandish stories for years, before the truth finally came out. Over the years, all of the crazy and exciting stories about Bigfoot, have resulted in a big disappointment and I'm not sure why the SC version would be any different?

Cisco, I totally understand where you are coming from with this posting.

 

However, Have you listened to Tim Coonbo's stories?

 

That man has had encounters that curls the hair on the head of the listener, and scares the pants off of them.

 

Go to my old topic named "Bigfoot Beheads People?" and listen to the podcast in the very *first* posting.

 

Then get back to me with your thoughts, please:) My opinion changed after the members here verified the truth of the stories Tim told.

[Guest]

***Where can I locate Garret's video? *********

Your making a mountain out of a molehill here. There is no official BF hoax-investigation group, someone might pop-up a story that sounds "fishy", as I have tried in the past with low-mixed results.

 

BFRO does the best job in having real interviews, and the interviewer comments on how believable the story is. That's the closest, there is nothing for the Blog-talk sphere.

 

There have been videos posted, the Christmas Oregon, and Idaho videos are a good point, and there are plenty people here who think they are fake. Same with the Estes Park video. I thought the Idaho was real because of the 20' jump it made down the hill, etc.

 

Low hanging fruit would be the blogtalk I posted, and no-one listened to/commented on. Doesn't seem to be much interest in this particular perspective of the topic, seems easier for people to be critical of videos, not blog-talks.

 

 

 

So, if I come across more outlandishly silly blogtalks, or something doesn't sound right, I may try to post it again, but not expecting much at this point about any useful input.

Will you post some of the blogtalk radio programs that you have listened to and thought they were worthy of the time it takes listening to them, please?

[Guest]

Plus 1 to CR.

 

There are a few critical conditions that determine how most people will react to this case.

-You have to accept the possibility of the critter existing in the first place.

-Then have to accept that they are capable, in every sense of the word, of the activity that is reported to have taken place in that camp.

-Then you have to accept that Garrett has presented an accurate account of what he discovered when he found the camp.

 

If any of the above are absent in your mind, or are otherwise beyond your personal belief set, then you ain't gonna accept this is a legit scenario, and you will define it by the absence of the critical condition(s) that is listed above. This entire thread is a discussion of those critical conditions, and where we stand on them, which dictates which side of the argument we fall on.

There ain't a whole lot of minds being changed in here, folks.

All we can do is evaluate and argue the known factors and wonder about the unknown.

I think this forum is at it's best when we can take a case and do that with serious attention to detail.

 

I accept condition #1

I also see no evidence that would support the conclusion that condition #2 is not possible. No evidence I have ever seen or account I have ever read leads me to eliminate this activity from the capability of the species.

 

Condition 3 is the hiccup. It frequently is. I don't know Garrett personally. I don't know anyone who does. I have seen a couple of video clips with him in them but they are not enough for me to determine whether I believe the man on this story or not.

When a story like this arises someone has put their entire reputation on the line. Media is so wrapped around our lives anymore that there is zero chance of maintaining anonymity when coming forward with a report like this, and there will be people who devote a lot of time to either slamming the story-bringer or lining up to support him.

When I was a kid, about a thousand years ago, integrity and character were almost a given. A man's word were taken seriously.

People who brought shame and ridicule to their family name were shunned, and their lives were not fun as a result.

Today, we seem to have turned 180*, and the concept of shame is dying.

Ultimately, I don't know.

I absolutely believe the event Garrett has brought forth is within the realm of possibility.

I simply am not ready to put my stamp of "Factual" on it at this point.

But I will keep my mind open, and evaluate any new information, and want to know the truth.

 

 

Before I begin to write this let me say well done and great illustration! You made some excellent points and I completely agree with you. I am not very familiar with the works of neither of those gentlemen other than an occasional radio streaming and even less with Garrett other than what is already known so, like you so eloquently stated, “there ain’t a whole lot of minds being changed in here,†is probably very accurate.  

 

The story paints an uncomfortable picture of an alternative world manipulated by powerful forces through ridicule disbelief, intimidation through psychological teasing as it were, told through the eyes and voice of a feisty yet, unsophisticated blue collar man beaten into quiet submission. The plot may seem chock full of more twists and turns than a pretzel and difficult to believe, but  when we buy into the posturing and "Prove it to me" attitude we are being set up to lose.  

 

In fact, the whole balance between hero and villain becomes so meshed together, if I understood many comments here I would say the purveyor (Sasquatch Chronicles) of the story and the bearer of facts (Mr. Garrett) as it were was the villain, and the yet unknown interventionist whoever they were the heroes In that instance for me, the obvious corollary conclusion would then be to point out obvious errors to someone who refuses to acknowledge it in hopes of offering another view.

 

So throughout his (Garret and SC) engaging story, threads of truth can be seen representing today’s society interweaving intrigue and mystery. Are his claims possible? Well I don’t what he observed through his own eyes or sensed with his own senses at the moment in time this occurred but I’ve read enough and worked enough in the world where everything described is a bit of genuine reality.  

 

To the last point in closing is this example:  Outrageous as it may sound, if I say a hen dips snuff, you can look under her wing for the can and may not find one, no matter what you (me or I) say they can always respond "It doesn't convince me." In the end analysis unfortunately, they can't prove my (yours or anyone elses') position but neither can anyone else disprove it and so therein lies the point.

 

 

Cisco, I totally understand where you are coming from with this posting.

 

However, Have you listened to Tim Coonbo's stories?

 

That man has had encounters that curls the hair on the head of the listener, and scares the pants off of them.

 

Go to my old topic named "Bigfoot Beheads People?" and listen to the podcast in the very *first* posting.

 

Then get back to me with your thoughts, please:) My opinion changed after the members here verified the truth of the stories Tim told.

 

Good to see you back SSQ!  J

Edited April 28, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

I agree with most of what you said but the little voice in the back of my head, after reading this, said "so did Melba Ketchum".  

 

I think the only way to truly understand insanity or delusion are from the inside.  Expecting an irrational person to make rational sense ... doesn't make rational sense.  Somewhere, somehow, the whole idea that someone would hold them responsible for what they say seems to escape.  Narcissism?  Sociopathy?   Where do "standards don't apply to me" and "I can't be held accountable" fall on the scale?

 

MIB

I hear you loud and clear.. Beyond the cultural collapse and it's impact on people... if you are ain't afraid of the shame and don't have a little voice talking to you about integrity and character then you ain't gonna be worried about being labeled a liar. The concept of being held accountable isn't even on their radar.

 

I don't claim to understand insanity or delusional people, but I can usually determine I am dealing with one after a brief conversation. Probably due to professional encounters...ran into a lot of nuts of varying degrees out there.

The people who don't see themselves being accountable to anyone, even themselves, you can usually see this evident in other facets of their lives, not just B-footery.

 

And Cisco brings another semi-new factor to the table, people seeking fame. With all of the new avenues to reach the masses we have these days there is no question the Fame-Seeker motive is another filter we have to evaluate. for most of my life if you were not on one of the three network TV channels we got on the Zenith or in the newspaper or a magazine we got chances are we'd never heard of you. Now, 250 channels, You-Tube, internet radio, it goes on and on...

[Guest]

Is it just me or does the puppet freak y'all out more than sasquatch?  That would be weird and I'd keep expecting it to show up under my bed!

[Guest]

I don't think Garrett's torn up camp and the Ape Canyon incident are different, in regards to opinions of their veracity. (Add the Honobia incident to that as well.)

 

People who are of the opinion that Big Foot is capable of attacking/killing people will believe these events to be possible. People who are of the opinion that Big Foot is not capable of attacking/killing people will believe these events are impossible. And until the data is examined and analyzed for the probability of this behavior, all of this will still be opinion.

 

Frankly, I'm rather surprised that this data analysis has not been done yet or has not been done on a formal level and that the data hasn't been shared. Analyzing data for Big Foot behavior would only help Big Foot researchers in their research and, possibly, capture efforts.

 

I've stated on other places that I'm a skeptic, not a debunker. And for burden of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be ideal, but I'm willing to go with "clear and convincing evidence"<------subjective, "feelings" and "beliefs" doesn't cut it for neither nor for "preponderance of the evidence".

 

I’m following you … all good points.

 

When we tread into "reasonable belief" territory we're waist deep into the subjective arena where a cop can pull you over because he as a "reasonable belief" you are up to no good because you're driving a 1970 Gremlin.

 

 Really?  Lol! I think many could argue it’s not the ride that draws attention rather the activity or actions of its occupants among other things but okay I’ll agree.  

 

As for Garrett's camp, do I think he came across a "torn up camp"? Yes, I do.

 

Do I think he behaved appropriately by stopping to render aid, calling 911 and even video taping it? Yes I do. I think his was an appropriate response, regardless of whether that "torn up camp" was a campsite in an isolated area to whether it was a single vehicle MVA in an inner city or suburb.

 

 Agreed.

 

Do I think he behaved appropriately when he posted his video? Yes I do. Garrett claims that he called the cops and they never showed up to what is potentially a crime scene or a location of a violent event. If the cops were unresponsive, then Garrett has a right as a taxpayer and as a whistle blower to expose the inertia of these public servants.

 

I agree.

 

Do I think the cops/NPS officials would be upset with Garrett for posting the video and going public with their lack of response? Yes.

 

Do you believe that is the reason for the treatment he claims he received? Could be, I don’t know just asking, because I understood it wasn’t a patrol officer that he allegedly interacted with was it? Patrol officers don’t have the authority to geek his computer and hack his computer or prosecute him in federal court do they?    

 

Do I think the cops/ NPS officials would retaliate against Garrett for exposing what could be interpreted as their incompetence? Yes.

 

I agree, but it seems like anyone can go on You Tube and see examples of that in every manner and situation without being overtly oppressive would you agree? Nothing goes unnoticed in small towns where police chiefs or county Sheriff’s (meaning department head not individual deputies) are typically appointed or elected and serve at the whim of the appointing body. Likewise in small towns the citizenry have loud voices and most would not tolerate that type of business. So, if that is correct who else would have immense horsepower and influence to cause the locals to pucker and submit to another's will or cooperate even tacitly under such intolerable behavior? Just wondering aloud. So me and you are not that far apart on the issues. We just converge from difference places and stages in life experiences. Good post CR!     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I agree with most of what you said but the little voice in the back of my head, after reading this, said "so did Melba Ketchum".  

 

I think the only way to truly understand insanity or delusion are from the inside.  Expecting an irrational person to make rational sense ... doesn't make rational sense.  Somewhere, somehow, the whole idea that someone would hold them responsible for what they say seems to escape.  Narcissism?  Sociopathy?   Where do "standards don't apply to me" and "I can't be held accountable" fall on the scale?

 

MIB

 

People have put their reputations on the line in the scientific world since the ancient Greeks and Romans. And it's been a yea or nay depending on the prevailing, contemporary opinion. Hippocrates was lauded as a "great" by his contemporaries and for the next 1000 years due to his humoral theory of medicine (which was know, now, was a big flop). Yet, his reputation is still highly regarded to this day. In contrast, Semmelweis' contemporaries thought he was "irrational" and "delusional" for suggesting that hand washing reduced child bed fever and he was denied a faculty reappointment.

 

So let's stop this practice of dismissing something as "insanity" or "delusion" based wholly upon irrational personal biases.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

I don't think Garrett's torn up camp and the Ape Canyon incident are different, in regards to opinions of their veracity. (Add the Honobia incident to that as well.)

 

People who are of the opinion that Big Foot is capable of attacking/killing people will believe these events to be possible. People who are of the opinion that Big Foot is not capable of attacking/killing people will believe these events are impossible. And until the data is examined and analyzed for the probability of this behavior, all of this will still be opinion.

 

Frankly, I'm rather surprised that this data analysis has not been done yet or has not been done on a formal level and that the data hasn't been shared. Analyzing data for Big Foot behavior would only help Big Foot researchers in their research and, possibly, capture efforts.

 

I've stated on other places that I'm a skeptic, not a debunker. And for burden of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be ideal, but I'm willing to go with "clear and convincing evidence"<------subjective, "feelings" and "beliefs" doesn't cut it for neither nor for "preponderance of the evidence".

 

I’m following you … all good points.

 

When we tread into "reasonable belief" territory we're waist deep into the subjective arena where a cop can pull you over because he as a "reasonable belief" you are up to no good because you're driving a 1970 Gremlin.

 

 Really?  Lol! I think many could argue it’s not the ride that draws attention rather the activity or actions of its occupants among other things but okay I’ll agree.  

 

As for Garrett's camp, do I think he came across a "torn up camp"? Yes, I do.

 

Do I think he behaved appropriately by stopping to render aid, calling 911 and even video taping it? Yes I do. I think his was an appropriate response, regardless of whether that "torn up camp" was a campsite in an isolated area to whether it was a single vehicle MVA in an inner city or suburb.

 

 Agreed.

 

Do I think he behaved appropriately when he posted his video? Yes I do. Garrett claims that he called the cops and they never showed up to what is potentially a crime scene or a location of a violent event. If the cops were unresponsive, then Garrett has a right as a taxpayer and as a whistle blower to expose the inertia of these public servants.

 

I agree.

 

Do I think the cops/NPS officials would be upset with Garrett for posting the video and going public with their lack of response? Yes.

 

Do you believe that is the reason for the treatment he claims he received? Could be, I don’t know just asking, because I understood it wasn’t a patrol officer that he allegedly interacted with was it? Patrol officers don’t have the authority to geek his computer and hack his computer or prosecute him in federal court do they?    

 

Do I think the cops/ NPS officials would retaliate against Garrett for exposing what could be interpreted as their incompetence? Yes.

 

I agree, but it seems like anyone can go on You Tube and see examples of that in every manner and situation without being overtly oppressive would you agree? Nothing goes unnoticed in small towns where police chiefs or county Sheriff’s (meaning department head not individual deputies) are typically appointed or elected and serve at the whim of the appointing body. Likewise in small towns the citizenry have loud voices and most would not tolerate that type of business. So, if that is correct who else would have immense horsepower and influence to cause the locals to pucker and submit to another's will or cooperate even tacitly under such intolerable behavior? Just wondering aloud. So me and you are not that far apart on the issues. We just converge from difference places and stages in life experiences. Good post CR!     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public servants are supposed to work for the public. So it harms them when the public sees they aren't working, aren't doing their jobs or aren't doing their jobs properly.  Garrett was on NPS land. So NPS has jurisdiction. In areas like that, local cops and the Feds should respond to the area for a 911 call. And whoever has jurisdiction takes over the investigation. That's how they do it in Washington DC, where a sidewalk can be under the jurisdiction of one Federal agency, the building is under the jurisdiction of another Federal agency, and the double yellow line in the middle of the street is under the jurisdiction of city police.  But all of these law enforcement agencies respond to 911 calls from that area. And that's how they do it in the national parks in the DC metro area: a 911 call from the National Wildlife Center will be responded to by the county cops, the state police and park police. Park police, of course, have jurisdiction and take over, but the locals still respond.

 

Garrett was on Federal park land. So, yeah, he calls 911. Local cops and the park police should have responded. He says they didn't that night. And he says that he went back early in the morning and there was still no sign of any law enforcement being there, until later that morning when he saw the clean up. We had a shooting at a gas station a few weeks ago. The cops had that gas station cordoned off  with patrol cars sitting in the adjacent store's parking lot that day and the next day.

 

Whether or not it was Big Foot who torn up the camp or a human murderer, the law enforcement should have responded when they were called.

 

As a taxpaying citizen, heck yeah I want the cops to be prompt and to respond to something that looks like a violent crime took place. It's irresponsible if they didn't. The cops aren't supposed to say "Well, it's just a bunch of drunks messing around up there. We can look into it in the morning. It's not urgent."  How do they know it's a bunch of drunks?  How do they know it's not urgent or can wait until the morning?

 

It's irresponsible enough for someone(s) to lose their j-o-b.

 

I don't think the Feds are worried that the video was evidence of a Big Foot attack. I think they were worried that it was evidence that they sat on their rear ends and did nothing for a few hours.

 

[Guest]

Thank you for sharing your observation. I am not making the captious objection to anything you posted thus far because most of it is spot on. With all sincerity it is a rare feat that someone can speak and write with soundness and direct knowledge of the ways of the street as you do without having been there congrats. However, I cannot say I am entirely immune from the vagaries of the way things work inside either, after all you (generally speaking) work some place for 25 years one can hardly miss a “plank,†but the question remains then, how can it be that simple?   

 

Coincidentally or through the actions of fate something terribly wrong took place that was supposed to be kept close to the chest.  I happen to hold the view that B. Garrett’s portrayal of the campsite scene is a little grimmer than most here would subscribe to. From the moment it was reported to his unexpected extraordinary life altering experiences immediately following the event.  Some of things he reportedly endured resonates with me and vaguely bears all the hallmarks of things I can relate to.  It also serves as a reminder that this world is much more than what meets the eye and certainly than we think know.

 

This incident below is one that you or may not have seen already. While it does not deal directly with campsite destroyed or torn up, it speaks to the extent of how this sort of thing is taken from an inside look, and how the big machine goes to work quickly and seriously despite how its viewed by public.  When you finish reading the incident below tell me if anything sounds vaguely familiar with what we know of the B. Garrett experiences.

 

 

2002 October

Stone County, Mississippi

Workers with the USDA encounter the carcass of a half-eaten dog while conducting timber survey. There was an abundance of large tracks in the area. The Anthropology Department of the nearby University of Southern Mississippi was asked to send someone to identify the tracks but was unable to at the time. The Hattiesburg Zoo was also asked to send a primatologist to the site as soon as possible to cast and identify the tracks. It is unknown if the zoo responded or not. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks was unable to provide any knowledge of what could have made the tracks. All employees of DeSoto National Forest were an email regarding the recent event. We were explicitly instructed to deny any knowledge of it and not to encourage anyone to hunt the creature that made the tracks and ate the dog. We were further instructed to stay clear of that area until further notice although none of did. The tracks were viewed by an anthropology graduate student from USM the day they were discovered and they are described as resembling large chimpanzee tracks. So much so that all zoos were contacted within miles to see if one had escaped. The tracks had two large toes on each foot, like an opposable thumb, closer to the heel that the distal end of the foot. This toe was flattened and atrophic indicating that it no longer served as a necessary appendage. The second and third toes having evolved to take the place of the big toes which would be expected in a semi-bipedal creature. The word expressed to USDA employees was that the tracks were from an unknown and undocumented primate. The local sheriff’s department and FBI sealed the area and removed the carcass of the eaten dog and made casts and took hundreds of photographs but nothing of the findings or conclusion of the incident were ever revealed. The site was raked clean.

 

Source: GCBRO

http://www.gcbro.com/MSstone0003.html

 

Edited April 30, 2015 by chelefoot
Remove quote of previous post

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Well, Gumshoeye, either that booger is a product of inbreeding or some ET's kid has released yet another messed up science experiment.

Yippee ki-yay!

[Guest]

Too many quotation boxes....eyes....burning....must look away! Lol