Campsite Destroyed

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Gumshoeye,

Some people on the SasChron forums suggested typical business tactics by another bigfoot organization. Seemed obvious to me also.

Lol, it was rather entertaining during February & March watching the tandem Reddit acceleration of edicts of attacks & subsequent deletions of said edicts...

In my humble opinion.

[Guest]

It's interesting how different folks perceive things different ways. Those who already have issues with the Wes and Woody story took the linked article as informative while those who really didn't have issues with the story begin to question the motive of the author of the article. That had never crossed my mind Gumshoeye. I felt the article was simply putting everything we already knew into one concise paper so that those who had questions and were late to the party could get all the answers in one stop. From what I have read on Facebook, the author was someone who was a member and supporter, who felt betrayed after learning the specifics of the sighting that did not add up.

 

As for the reason for the financial section, I think she (the author) put that in due to all of the complaints that are going on over on Reddit about the installation of a paid membership (which never really concerned me) and questions as to whether the "Story" was born to bolster listeners.

 

@ Thank you Chele,  I appreciate you placing the document there to read, and I know you did so for all the right reasons too.  No doubt and question in my mind.  It was the first time I read all of the items bothering people.  I read it once made some notes and scanned through it a second time after giving it some thought. Woke up at 4:00- 4:30 this morning and began to write. I didn’t check to see if there was a moon out or not … LOL

 

There it is …well I read it and gave it my critique.

 

 

@Diana S  Thank you for the comment. Yes that does seem to be the norm these days with so many podcasts shows.

[SWWASAS]

I don't know if Wes and Woody had a genuine experience.     But I do think they are what I would call poor witnesses because of the inconsistencies in their account.     They did not seem to know where they were and seemingly did not bother to figure it out later.   References to local pet names for geographic features just does not hold water.   This is National Forest.   There are no local residences or people living there to provide alternate names.   I see that in cases where local residents have their own pet names for roads that are not official.   The nearest residence is the camp ground host at Sunset Falls Campground over two miles away and they are temporary.  I live closer to the supposed event than  Wes and Woody do and am not aware of any alternate names for geographical features in the area.   The only alternate names that could have any significance might be long forgotten Native American names for geographical features.     They either were unaware of what time it was or not aware of the lighting conditions related to the position, phase,  or absence of the moon.    Narrative references to up and down are not consistent with the terrain.  There is some question about what they recall as weather conditions.   If these basic environmental factors in the experience that were constant throughout, could not be comprehended and remembered, then I have little faith that what they remember about the BF encountered was accurate either. 

 

The disdain expressed in the WASRT report is representative of the treatment here given to people who BFF members believe are making things up or hoaxing.     I don't see any hidden agenda in the report other than what they claim seems to fall apart under a cursory examination. 

Edited May 4, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest]

I don't know if Wes and Woody had a genuine experience.     But I do think they are what I would call poor witnesses because of the inconsistencies in their account.     They did not seem to know where they were and seemingly did not bother to figure it out later.   References to local pet names for geographic features just does not hold water.   This is National Forest.   There are no local residences or people living there to provide alternate names.   I see that in cases where local residents have their own pet names for roads that are not official.   The nearest residence is the camp ground host at Sunset Falls Campground over two miles away and they are temporary.  I live closer to the supposed event than  Wes and Woody do and am not aware of any alternate names for geographical features in the area.   The only alternate names that could have any significance might be long forgotten Native American names for geographical features.     They either were unaware of what time it was or not aware of the lighting conditions related to the position, phase,  or absence of the moon.    Narrative references to up and down are not consistent with the terrain.  There is some question about what they recall as weather conditions.   If these basic environmental factors in the experience that were constant throughout, could not be comprehended and remembered, then I have little faith that what they remember about the BF encountered was accurate either. 

 

The disdain expressed in the WASRT report is representative of the treatment here given to people who BFF members believe are making things up or hoaxing.     I don't see any hidden agenda in the report other than what they claim seems to fall apart under a cursory examination. 

 

A remarkable statement and one I agree with in part and that is the SC guys could have probably done better as witnesses but that’s not an insurmountable failing in my mind. We should all esteem to be perfect under all circumstances.

 

Due to the cryptic and ambiguous undertones conveyed in the first sentence I am going to ask where the term or definition of disdain factors into this conversation?  By definition disdain is understood to mean unworthiness and I searched through my recent posts and found nothing that could be remotely construed as unworthy did anybody else? If it’s mean to be a personal statement stop the shadow boxing and say what you mean and mean what you say. I am incorrect please correct me.  

 

When the acronym was first used without explanation I honestly thought it was a radio station or something. It wasn't until I read the document in it's entirety that I figured out it was a Washington Sasquatch Research Team however, since WASRT was brought up I don’t know what investigative qualifications the author possesses, the WASRT has or had in collecting evidence, conducting investigations or if they or you know what it takes to conduct an investigation or examine of a scene for evidential value.  A cursory examination may or may not be construed as pretext excuse to look for something beyond or outside the scope of its true intent or purpose.

 

I'll admit I am winging it here because I am trying to understand what the message here about cursory examination is. The meaning of cursory as defined is something superficially conducted or insignificant with little attention to detail. To examine such as in the context of examination is to look at something closely carefully and when placed together: cursory examination it says somebody was a look was made quickly with little attention to detail and looking something carefully and closely which was it? How are two contradictory efforts suppose to be find anything?  

 

What you may not see as any hidden agenda is not the same conclusion I arrive at.  

 

Either this document is a position paper or it’s something else. Is it an unbiased, I see it for what its worth but the paper there were words and statements that certainly tweaked my interest as I read and reread it. The giveaway words or statements such as: confusion, hoax, could not have occurred, did not occur or not have occurred and there is no evidence became a recurrent pattern and theme all throughout this document. The Power of suggestion is often referred to as power of subconscious because of the repetition and reinforcement.  What do you call it?

 

There is no evidence that I could find mentioned 4 times  

Did not occur or not have occurred mentioned 2 times

Could not have occurred mentioned 1 time

Confusion mentioned 4 times  

Hoax mentioned 6 times   

 

References to local pet names for geographic features may not hold water with you but it apparently was enough for the author, WASRT and I agree with them too.  

 

Writer admits to confusion about the location.

 

Quote: “There has been confusion about the location. However, there are numerous references to the location.†End Quote. Page 9

 

Posted on WASRT facebook page

Quote:  â€œWes and Woody have referred refer to this as Yacolt mountain in error since day one probably because it’s what they’ve always heard it called? (I’m guessing). Locals tend to have their own names for the smaller hills around here (such as Muppet Mountain) so the confusion was understandable.† End Quote. Page 24

 

Quote: At the time I didn’t have the exact location of the sighting, we just had the initial general directions.†End Quote.  Page 24

 

After reading this several times am I suppose to join the chorus and clap my hands like a seal and call it a hoax, no of course not.  

 

- Gumshoeye

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[BigTreeWalker]

Thank you!

Your welcome Chele.

I would suggest that if anyone wants this for future reference that you download it. Since the 1st time it was put up it was removed pretty quickly and I don't know what the reason was behind removing it.

[chelefoot]

I got it! Thanks!

[Cisco]

Gum

 

First and foremost I always appreciate your posts because of the efforts you make to be diplomatic and friendly, even when responding to a much different point of view.

 

Thank you for keeping things pleasant and the extra effort you make helps keep this discussion moving forward in a positive manner.

 

As to Will's comment and the paper that Chele posted, it tends to further discredit Wes and Woody's sighting. However, Will's comment also tends to discredit Will so I have to take it with a grain of salt. I think Will was just doing damage control and distancing himself from Wes and Woody. In fact, it really makes Will look silly because he's been on dozens of SC episodes with these guys and has ridden their coat tails. Then, all of a sudden, he decides to check with his "inside" sources to see if there were any Sasquatch in the area, at the time of Wes & Woody's sighting. Why did he not check with his sources, before appearing on some many episodes? After all, the man has an inside source that can tell him the location of specific Sasquatch. With this kind of information, he should start his own show and website. He can title it "Where in the World is Sasquatch" and he can even release an app, paid of course, where subscribers can follow the location of Sasquatch on a map. Why is anybody wasting their time trying to find these creatures when Will can make a call and just tell you.

 

Honestly; how can he expect anybody to simply just swallow that story?

 

I had not read the sighting report for Wes and Woody, until today,  but my "knee jerk" response is that it sounds like the kind of story somebody would make up, after a few weeks of looking at a number of different Bigfoot websites. In fact, the only thing missing from this stereotypical sighting, was the report of a bad smell. Other than that, it had all of the key elements of a Bigfoot sighting. The mistake they made was they included too many of the elements. Most sightings have one or two of these things but most people don't notice them because they know nothing about the subject matter. It's obvious that Wes and Woody did some homework, prior to their sighting. They even mention the effects of infrasound... These guys crossed their t's and dotted their i's, that's for sure.

 

I've been listening to their shows every weekend, as I work in the yard. I just listened to a report from a witness, that claims hunters were found dead, wedged in trees. I've been meaning to research this claim but have not had time to do so. This Bob Garret things is one of many crazy claims that I've heard on the show. I will say this about the show, its **** entertaining.

[BigTreeWalker]

The biggest problem I have with all this supposed murder and destruction is why doesn't any of it show up in the nightly news, newsfeeds, or newspapers? The news media is always looking for a good story to blow out of proportion. I'm always hearing about the removal of problem cougars or bears and most the time they've done nothing but wonder around and scare people who see them. Seems like the only place any of these occurrences involving sasquatch is mentioned is in the Bigfoot community itself!

Just wondering.

[SWWASAS]

What would I know anyway! I live 15 miles away and been boots on the ground 3 times at the location as well as by there a bunch of times. If Wes and Woody want to rename some geographical feature designated by the USGS as Jack Mountain and call it Yacolt Mountain which is really 11 miles away, to match their story why should I care? I guess some would say we should give them that because maybe they know the area better than I do. I will buy that if someone can tell me what they were doing there in the first place. They maintain they were not bigfooters at that time. Were they spotlighting and poaching deer or parked and making out or something? Maybe they needed to make up a story to cover up what they really were doing there in the middle of the night?

Edited May 4, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest]

Gum

 

First and foremost I always appreciate your posts because of the efforts you make to be diplomatic and friendly, even when responding to a much different point of view.

 

Thank you for keeping things pleasant and the extra effort you make helps keep this discussion moving forward in a positive manner.

 

As to Will's comment and the paper that Chele posted, it tends to further discredit Wes and Woody's sighting. However, Will's comment also tends to discredit Will so I have to take it with a grain of salt. I think Will was just doing damage control and distancing himself from Wes and Woody. In fact, it really makes Will look silly because he's been on dozens of SC episodes with these guys and has ridden their coat tails. Then, all of a sudden, he decides to check with his "inside" sources to see if there were any Sasquatch in the area, at the time of Wes & Woody's sighting. Why did he not check with his sources, before appearing on some many episodes? After all, the man has an inside source that can tell him the location of specific Sasquatch. With this kind of information, he should start his own show and website. He can title it "Where in the World is Sasquatch" and he can even release an app, paid of course, where subscribers can follow the location of Sasquatch on a map. Why is anybody wasting their time trying to find these creatures when Will can make a call and just tell you.

 

Honestly; how can he expect anybody to simply just swallow that story?

 

I had not read the sighting report for Wes and Woody, until today,  but my "knee jerk" response is that it sounds like the kind of story somebody would make up, after a few weeks of looking at a number of different Bigfoot websites. In fact, the only thing missing from this stereotypical sighting, was the report of a bad smell. Other than that, it had all of the key elements of a Bigfoot sighting. The mistake they made was they included too many of the elements. Most sightings have one or two of these things but most people don't notice them because they know nothing about the subject matter. It's obvious that Wes and Woody did some homework, prior to their sighting. They even mention the effects of infrasound... These guys crossed their t's and dotted their i's, that's for sure.

 

I've been listening to their shows every weekend, as I work in the yard. I just listened to a report from a witness, that claims hunters were found dead, wedged in trees. I've been meaning to research this claim but have not had time to do so. This Bob Garret things is one of many crazy claims that I've heard on the show. I will say this about the show, its **** entertaining.

 

Well I’ll admit it’s all so convoluted it’s difficult to render a common sense conclusion and the water keeps getting murkier and murkier. But I read that paper as most did here and that’s not an investigation by any stretch as I hope I was able to illustrate so that it was understood from my position.

The biggest problem I have with all this supposed murder and destruction is why doesn't any of it show up in the nightly news, newsfeeds, or newspapers? The news media is always looking for a good story to blow out of proportion. I'm always hearing about the removal of problem cougars or bears and most the time they've done nothing but wonder around and scare people who see them. Seems like the only place any of these occurrences involving sasquatch is mentioned is in the Bigfoot community itself!

Just wondering.

 

For the same reason Bigfoot related incidents aren’t acknowledged in an official capacity and or another reason the National Park Service doesn’t officially speak of them in reports despite the numerous reports they receive from the public. Even though anonymous employees tell a different story under the banner of complete anonymity. Better yet, why are they stonewalling D. Paulides in his request to gain access to missing person’s reports under the FOIA, Freedom of Information Act I guess.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest]

What would I know anyway! I live 15 miles away and been boots on the ground 3 times at the location as well as by there a bunch of times. If Wes and Woody want to rename some geographical feature designated by the USGS as Jack Mountain and call it Yacolt Mountain which is really 11 miles away, to match their story why should I care? I guess some would say we should give them that because maybe they know the area better than I do. I will buy that if someone can tell me what they were doing there in the first place. They maintain they were not bigfooters at that time. Were they spotlighting and poaching deer or parked and making out or something? Maybe they needed to make up a story to cover up what they really were doing there in the middle of the night?

 

Nobody has implied they (the SC guys no better than or anyone else) though what I am saying for me anyways there are vague circumstantial issues clouding up the whole issue and because of those things I mentioned, I cannot join the crowd and condemned these men. From what I understand none of us here were present when that encounter allegedly occurred and so somehow that is suppose to give us authority to call names and such as I read earlier in the thread? I cannot be party to that and I will not. Sure … things are flimsy on both sides of the aisle but we cannot be absolute and not willing to risk faulting anyone on what I just read.  

The biggest problem I have with all this supposed murder and destruction is why doesn't any of it show up in the nightly news, newsfeeds, or newspapers? The news media is always looking for a good story to blow out of proportion. I'm always hearing about the removal of problem cougars or bears and most the time they've done nothing but wonder around and scare people who see them. Seems like the only place any of these occurrences involving sasquatch is mentioned is in the Bigfoot community itself!

Just wondering.

 

Isn’t it odd that very little is said to challenge what that man claims he observed and somehow the all turned toward the purveyors, the facilitators of that witness? In the meantime, he is interrogated and threatened (so he claims) with imprisonment, his computer is hacked, his files are rifled through and some go missing and his facebook or You Tube account is coincidentally locked out. Nothing there you say? Hmmm.  The topic of Sasquatch seems to go something like this: You can look but you can't touch or in other words we can talk about it but woe unto those who get to close and personal.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Bonehead74]

Gumshoeye,

In your law enforcement career, what percentage (approximately) of the crimes that you investigated, were you present during the commission of and physically witnessed vs. those where you had rely on circumstantial evidence and a witness' or suspect's testimony? When a suspect gave you a story that just didn't add up/fit the other known facts of the incident, did you refrain from calling him names (verbally or in your head) and send him on his way with a wave because you weren't there to see what happened, so hey, who are you to judge?

Your philosophy seems quite unique among the many police officers I know and work with.

[coffee2go]

Well I just finished reading and it appears the author is highly motivated, appears angry, determined and agenda driven but what reason. It causes me to wonder what the underlying reason. Was the author present at the time of the alleged encounter? There are a whole lot of presumptuous conclusions that it did not occur from a person that was not there. Did the author know SC guys before this incident it doesn’t say in fact there is no mission statement, no explanation for the objective goal. So what’s the point?

 

The author does begin the document by noting that it was up to the reader to make their own final conclusion. I did, I read the information and it’s still a bunch of circumstantial data that doesn’t point to anything but personal conclusions. Although after reading through the financial accounting I still cannot figure expenses for things like steel wool or combs but nevertheless, sorry but there is absolutely no "there" there.

 

Ok, I have to respond to this one.

Since you are questioning the veracity of the author of this paper, I would like to know what facts or evidence you used in your defense of Wes and Woody's story.  The author made an attempt to point out moon phases, weather conditions and contacted people who were involved with the show, as well as the agencies/groups that were cited in the podcasts.  As you pointed out, the paper was "a bunch of circumstantial data that doesn’t point to anything but personal conclusions".  What do you suggest the bf community base their conclusions on when reading or hearing any sighting report?

 

As a retired private investigator, you must know that people do not arrive at the truth without research and a lot of questioning about statements that don't smell right.  

[Guest]

Aren’t the wolves collared in some areas by those with an interest to know where they go or what their range is?  LOL  Just asking … In spite of the sheer number of Bigfoots based on reports of course, I would say that is a bit of a stretch to think they are all tracked and it raises eyebrows of suspicion to the authenticity of the email. To suggest yea they were here but not there is all but admitting they exist and I cannot go there yet but I certainly believe somebody or something with limitless resources intervened in the Texas case.  

 

@ Johnny G, about the spell checker now, I caught that myself and wondered why an accomplished author would allow his email to read like that which only further adds to the intrigue. Personally I don't think anything is laughable or impossible. Somebody can view somebody half way around the world and see what they do, somebody can sit in the comfort and privacy of some chairman of chief's room and watch an operation develop half way around the world in real time they can and do, what is preposterous about that?  

First, kudos to Big Tree Walker for the save!

 

Gumshoe, That spelling issue was/is an odd one.  Especially for an author.  I've got one of his books in my night stand!  It does make one wonder about the authenticity.  Had it been hurriedly typed out on a smart phone, it still would've likely  been auto-corrected or at least glowed red prompting repair.

 

These Gov't insiders coming out of the woodwork is absolutely possible.  The capabilities and resources of the Gov't are immense as well.  The combination of the amount of sources and that these resources would be brought to bear on Sasquatch is what elevates it to laughable IMHO.  And it's just MHO of course, but I feel it is just too much.  I can also say that some of the LEOs they had on the show were questionable at best, and likely full of it.  There were some legitimate LEOs, but they seemed to be relating encounters with the big guy, not men in black.  

 

I think the subject matter of Sas. Chron. brought out the wackos and those desiring attention, and anyone could call Jevning and claim anything. Unless he saw their creds and KNEW what to look for to ensure authenticity.  All sorts of "IDs" can be purchased on line by anyone.  I personally believe Wil is being snowballed.  It's easy to snowball someone when you're telling them what they want to hear, so it's hard to blame him, but his BS meter should be tuned up a bit.

 

Again, the capabilities of the Gov't are certainly not in question, neither is the sometimes questionable use of such, but I am not ready to believe it's being done for Bigfoot.  Incompetence and avoidance of negative publicity, I believe anyway, can explain many of the issues people like Paulides have experienced.   As has been said before, IMHO he would be a much better target for the Star Chamber anyway.  I do know there are many things brought up, LE wise, which puzzle and disturb me.  I just think the answer is simpler than an organized effort to keep Bigfoot secret.  I hope I'm correct anyway, because the alternative is uncomfortable

[Guest]

Ok, I have to respond to this one.

Since you are questioning the veracity of the author of this paper, I would like to know what facts or evidence you used in your defense of Wes and Woody's story.  The author made an attempt to point out moon phases, weather conditions and contacted people who were involved with the show, as well as the agencies/groups that were cited in the podcasts.  As you pointed out, the paper was "a bunch of circumstantial data that doesn’t point to anything but personal conclusions".  What do you suggest the bf community base their conclusions on when reading or hearing any sighting report?

 

As a retired private investigator, you must know that people do not arrive at the truth without research and a lot of questioning about statements that don't smell right.  

 

@ Coffee 2 Go, I should preface this by restating I am neither a paid spokesperson for against anyone. I am not on anyone’s payroll period.  Being that I am not paid, I simply did what many of you did and that read what was present and arrived at my own conclusion based on what was presented exactly like most of us here did. Would I have things differently well I described a few things in my recent posts but I should make it clear that I am saying that anything did or did not occur because I do not know this be fact and neither does anyone single person here. That’s where we differ. If it we me investigating it wouldn’t be done in hours, days or maybe months I don’t know but it would objective without preconceived notions that would taint the opinion either way. You’re correct too; there is no new car smell to any of this.

 

Look I don’t any pleasure feeling like the antagonist here but somebody has to be a voice of reason for the other side too. I am as a guest in somebody else’s house like many of us here. I don’t serve a master and I’m not told what to say. I’m here because I feel welcome and I enjoy the dialogue.  I made a living analyzing statements watching and reading people, at the moment I am sharing some finer points of how this viewed.  

 

The same group jumping up to condemn some people over what they claim seen cannot be refuted by what is presented in the document many have now read. Due to the fact that within that very same are glaring inconsistencies and problematic biases that call into question objective fact finding.

 

Bigfootology is rife with uncertainty and riddled with paradoxes often replete with laughter, tears, triumph, and tragedy and sometimes even down-right nasty name calling, and yet somehow we come to accept ridicule and mob rule. As Bigfoot enthusiast we will cannibalize our own in our own fever pitched fervor to deliver the truth sometimes to a fault.  - FWIW

Edited May 5, 2015 by Gumshoeye