Campsite Destroyed

[Guest diana swampbooger]

So, Bonehead, what are your raw materials?

[Bonehead74]

Known astronomical and geographical facts, the statements of the claimants, as well as miscellaneous facts that have come to light during the various follow-up investigations.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Known astronomical & geographical facts, Bonehead?

Astronomical, as in the no moon & low cloud cover thing?

It's a fact that during that time of year, cloud cover has ice crystals & will bounce city lights everywhere.

Or is it known for a fact the quality & quantity of ice crystals?

Or is it a known fact there was no cloud cover precisely exactly at the sighting?

Or is it a know fact that the level of the cloud cover would have afforded no bounce of light?

Or for instance, I tell you that I saw boogers & one of them put his head in my car window at Myakka State Park(about 58 square miles). You demand to know where exactly, precisely, immediately. I'm going to tell you to be patient due to high trauma....blahblahblah

Okie dokie, Bonehead. You have all the facts.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

This might not be a popular opinion, but I think it's within reason to scrutinize and examine an investigative report and fact check its veracity, but then I'm a skeptic (in the classical Greek sense).

[SWWASAS]

This might not be a popular opinion, but I think it's within reason to scrutinize and examine an investigative report and fact check its veracity, but then I'm a skeptic (in the classical Greek sense).

Members here have fact checked the WASRT field report and I do not recall anyone finding anything different from other sources. Moon phase, geography, time of moon set, are data facts found from records that can and have been independently investigated by BFF members with essentially the same result as the WASRT investigators. The invistigators are not the ones that have fabricated anything. The tone of the WASRT report is certainly subjective but even if it seems critical of the witnesses, facts are facts. Diana the witnesses did not simply say that the subject was well illuminated by an unknown light source like your clouds, ice crystals, aurora, scattered city lights, when they could have, but they said it was a full or nearly full moon which not only was not in that phase but had already set at the time they say the sighting happened. Anyone here can do the same fact checking unless drinking the Wes and Woody purple coolaid is more enlightening than fact checking.

Edited May 6, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest diana swampbooger]

It could be, might be, very well feasibly have been that they were very much occupied with other things more pressing rather than focusing on where the illumination was derived, Swwasasquatchproject.

drinking purple coolaid????

huh?

oh

lol

Ohhhh burnnnnn!

Your turn.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

And it's good that people have fact checked the WASRT reports and this last report/compilation.  I'm grateful for that and for the work you've done going to that location and posting pics of the area. That's been very helpful to me.

 

What I don't like is if these reports aren't fact checked and accepted without question.

[Cisco]

There's a big difference between the stories told be Wes and Woody (SC) and stories told by your average witnesses.

Most Bigfoot sighting reports involve one person, sometimes more, watching a Bigfoot perform some action. Sometimes it's pretty basic stuff, such as walking across a road or standing next to a tree. Every once in a while, the sightings involve more dynamic activities, on the part of the Bigfoot, such as hunting or possibly even threatening the witness.

Sighting reports are impossible to prove or collaborate, unless there is additional evidence, that adds credibility to the story. We often see this in the form of foot prints or broken tree limbs.

Even then, the evidence is almost always benign as it could have gotten there by other means.

Now, consider the stories that Wes and Woody have told or hosted on their show. These stories are also related by witnesses and, like most other Bigfoot encounters, impossible to prove. However, they have additional components, in the form of federal agents or other law enforcement officers and sometimes these stories even include victims of purported Bigfoot attacks. It's these additional components that take the stories to a whole different level and justify additional scrutiny.

It's these additional components that provide the ability to research and verify if these stories ever occurred. For example, I did a fair amount of research regarding reports of camp grounds being destroyed, in or near the area of the camp ground incident reported by Bob Garret. I could not find anything about a camp ground crime scene or any kind of crime related to camping in this area. I also did a search for missing people in the area, that were camping at the time they were reported missing. Again, I found nothing.

Recently, I listened to a SC broadcast of a witness that discussed violent behavior of the Bigfoot in his area. He even went so far as to mention the specific area and claimed that some hunters had been killed and wedged in a tree. According to his story, the police believed it was an accident and the hunters had somehow fallen into the tree and been killed. In addition, their rifles were found and had the barrels bent into a U shape. As the story goes, the press also reported this as an accident. I did a lot of research and, as usual, found nothing. Which tends to be the case with everything reported by Wes and Woody. It's all exciting stuff and makes for great and entertaining shows but appears to not have any basis in reality.

Of course, Wes and Woody are not stupid enough to paint themselves into a corner. This is why they have introduced the mysterious "Mr. Black" and other enigmatic government agents, who's job in life is too diligently erase any evidence of Bigfoot existence and wrong doing. These federal agents must have extraordinary talents because they have literally removed all evidence, including removing newspaper articles of events already published. Anytime somebody questions the lack of evidence regarding Bigfoot victims or destroyed property, the answer is always; everybody is too scared of the federal agency responsible for keeping Bigfoot secret.

The question that always comes into my head is this: If there's a federal agency in charge of hiding the existence of Bigfoot and making sure the public never finds out about their murderous behavior; why do they allow Sasquatch Chronicles to go on the air and not only discuss the activity of Bigfoot but also discuss the activity of the agency itself? In exacting detail, I might add .

Maybe there's an easier and more sensible answer. Such as; this show is for entertainment and its focus is selling advertising for a profit. I don't know, just tossing it out there as another option...

[Guest]

Does anyone else find it strange that Gumshoeye is attacking the investigators, not the witnesses who are the source of all the confusion as to location, moon phases, and other discrepancies in the report? He wants to apply legal principles to the investigation of BF. That is a poor model to use for something that should be scientific in nature and needs different methodology. As far as witness reports being direct evidence, nearly every week in this country someone in prison is released from wrongful imprisonment because of false statements by witnesses in criminal trials. DNA testing that was not available at the time shows that the perpetrator of the crime was not the person serving time. A well known lawyer defense lawyer in this area constantly reminds people that the legal system is not set up to find truth. In many cases truth is prevented from being given as testimony because it might be prejudicial to the defendant. The legal system is about precedent based case law not truth. And that sort of precedent based system in science perpetuates dogma and discounts truth.

 

Hey I don’t think it’s so strange after all I heard more descriptions of evidence from a variety of people who while mean well don’t have the foggiest idea of what it is. I am merely trying to set the record straight. If you employ evidence then there are rules to do the right way or make up along the way. Either way if we choose to use words like evidence, investigation, cursory examination and circumstantial evidence those rules and principles that fall directly into the realm jurisprudence and just for the record, I do not believe I was the first to introduce them here. So we can get past that use those terms then show what you know and do it but allow it to apply both ways not just in something that suits a specific outcome otherwise we’re just playing word police here.

 

I believe I’ve more than conciliatory toward everyone and their views since their first post. Why not ask me personally if something that doesn’t agree you or if  I said something problematic about this issue that doesn’t sit well with anybody all you need to do is ask. I am approachable. I don't bit I promise. Who knows we might closer in agreement than you ever thought. I’m not a porcupine who will pick you for asking. I have been extraordinarily fair in my opinions and so stated my reasons clearly for not falling in line with the name calling here. If memory serves me correctly the whole event sounded like bears than Bigfoot am I correct? Me personally I happen to have a very different point of view and I'll give you hint it's not bears.

 

Insofar as the WASRT investigation goes as it were, I said it at least three times now I thought they were very fair and honest in their opinion. I find no fault in that. Am I attacking something the Moon Phase, Solar Phase, the Financial or other part of that document no, I’m simply pointing out the overall conclusion was totally suggestive and looked more like deer hunt than an objective inquiry if truth be told.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

There's a big difference between the stories told be Wes and Woody (SC) and stories told by your average witnesses.

Most Bigfoot sighting reports involve one person, sometimes more, watching a Bigfoot perform some action. Sometimes it's pretty basic stuff, such as walking across a road or standing next to a tree. Every once in a while, the sightings involve more dynamic activities, on the part of the Bigfoot, such as hunting or possibly even threatening the witness.

Sighting reports are impossible to prove or collaborate, unless there is additional evidence, that adds credibility to the story. We often see this in the form of foot prints or broken tree limbs.

Even then, the evidence is almost always benign as it could have gotten there by other means.

Now, consider the stories that Wes and Woody have told or hosted on their show. These stories are also related by witnesses and, like most other Bigfoot encounters, impossible to prove. However, they have additional components, in the form of federal agents or other law enforcement officers and sometimes these stories even include victims of purported Bigfoot attacks. It's these additional components that take the stories to a whole different level and justify additional scrutiny.

It's these additional components that provide the ability to research and verify if these stories ever occurred. For example, I did a fair amount of research regarding reports of camp grounds being destroyed, in or near the area of the camp ground incident reported by Bob Garret. I could not find anything about a camp ground crime scene or any kind of crime related to camping in this area. I also did a search for missing people in the area, that were camping at the time they were reported missing. Again, I found nothing.

Recently, I listened to a SC broadcast of a witness that discussed violent behavior of the Bigfoot in his area. He even went so far as to mention the specific area and claimed that some hunters had been killed and wedged in a tree. According to his story, the police believed it was an accident and the hunters had somehow fallen into the tree and been killed. In addition, their rifles were found and had the barrels bent into a U shape. As the story goes, the press also reported this as an accident. I did a lot of research and, as usual, found nothing. Which tends to be the case with everything reported by Wes and Woody. It's all exciting stuff and makes for great and entertaining shows but appears to not have any basis in reality.

Of course, Wes and Woody are not stupid enough to paint themselves into a corner. This is why they have introduced the mysterious "Mr. Black" and other enigmatic government agents, who's job in life is too diligently erase any evidence of Bigfoot existence and wrong doing. These federal agents must have extraordinary talents because they have literally removed all evidence, including removing newspaper articles of events already published. Anytime somebody questions the lack of evidence regarding Bigfoot victims or destroyed property, the answer is always; everybody is too scared of the federal agency responsible for keeping Bigfoot secret.

The question that always comes into my head is this: If there's a federal agency in charge of the existence of Bigfoot and making sure the public never finds out about their murderous behavior; why do they allow Sasquatch Chronicles to go on the air and not only discuss the activity of Bigfoot but also discuss the activity of the agency itself? In exacting detail, I might add .

Maybe there's an easier and more sensible answer. Such as; this show is for entertainment and its focus is selling advertising for a profit. I don't know, just tossing it out there as another option...

 

I think that was Lon Stickler with the story about the hunters and the tree. Stickler is a Big Foot researcher in Maryland. When he was on SC, he did mention state police, etc. His story is on his website http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/p/the-sykesville-encounter.htmlhiding

 

Keep this in mind when you read Stickler's account. Stickler's encounter is in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Lots of government and military facilities in that region. Some of them have been taken off the maps due to security concerns post 9/11.  So, for me, getting that kind of response  from multiple law enforcement agencies is not unusual.

[SWWASAS]

It could be, might be, very well feasibly have been that they were very much occupied with other things more pressing rather than focusing on where the illumination was derived, Swwasasquatchproject.

Your turn.

If like you say, they were involved in the sighting and occupied with fear and what they were seeing,  the more likely result of their recollection would be that while they saw what they saw, it was illuminated from some source that they only assumed to be the moon.   That would be what they remembered and related if their story is authentic and related accurately.    They would not remember a full moon which we know had already set and was not full either.    Could it be, if they did have the experience,  they realized that there was very poor illumination, and what they saw would be questioned because of how dark it was,  so to quell that worry, they embellished the story with a full moon not realizing that the phase and previous setting of the moon would be an issue later.  Once said, it cannot be taken back, and that led to questions about the actual day of the sighting.   That discrepancy led to investigation of the moon set time.      From my experience at the location, the elevation of the moon even when up might be an issue.     In the winter the moon is low in the sky just as the sun tracks lower in the sky.   That river canyon is quite deep,  so even when the moon is officially up and not set, the moon would be behind the ridge just South of the sighting location for much of the night providing light from scatter off the clouds but not visible directly.   

Edited May 6, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bonehead74]

Known astronomical & geographical facts, Bonehead?Astronomical, as in the no moon & low cloud cover thing?It's a fact that during that time of year, cloud cover has ice crystals & will bounce city lights everywhere.Or is it known for a fact the quality & quantity of ice crystals?Or is it a known fact there was no cloud cover precisely exactly at the sighting?Or is it a know fact that the level of the cloud cover would have afforded no bounce of light?

Straws. You're grasping at them.

Or for instance, I tell you that I saw boogers & one of them put his head in my car window at Myakka State Park(about 58 square miles). You demand to know where exactly, precisely, immediately. I'm going to tell you to be patient due to high trauma....blahblahblah

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Okie dokie, Bonehead. You have all the facts.

No, just those available to me.

[Guest]

There's a big difference between the stories told be Wes and Woody (SC) and stories told by your average witnesses.

Most Bigfoot sighting reports involve one person, sometimes more, watching a Bigfoot perform some action. Sometimes it's pretty basic stuff, such as walking across a road or standing next to a tree. Every once in a while, the sightings involve more dynamic activities, on the part of the Bigfoot, such as hunting or possibly even threatening the witness.

Sighting reports are impossible to prove or collaborate, unless there is additional evidence, that adds credibility to the story. We often see this in the form of foot prints or broken tree limbs.

Even then, the evidence is almost always benign as it could have gotten there by other means.

Now, consider the stories that Wes and Woody have told or hosted on their show. These stories are also related by witnesses and, like most other Bigfoot encounters, impossible to prove. However, they have additional components, in the form of federal agents or other law enforcement officers and sometimes these stories even include victims of purported Bigfoot attacks. It's these additional components that take the stories to a whole different level and justify additional scrutiny.

It's these additional components that provide the ability to research and verify if these stories ever occurred. For example, I did a fair amount of research regarding reports of camp grounds being destroyed, in or near the area of the camp ground incident reported by Bob Garret. I could not find anything about a camp ground crime scene or any kind of crime related to camping in this area. I also did a search for missing people in the area, that were camping at the time they were reported missing. Again, I found nothing.

Recently, I listened to a SC broadcast of a witness that discussed violent behavior of the Bigfoot in his area. He even went so far as to mention the specific area and claimed that some hunters had been killed and wedged in a tree. According to his story, the police believed it was an accident and the hunters had somehow fallen into the tree and been killed. In addition, their rifles were found and had the barrels bent into a U shape. As the story goes, the press also reported this as an accident. I did a lot of research and, as usual, found nothing. Which tends to be the case with everything reported by Wes and Woody. It's all exciting stuff and makes for great and entertaining shows but appears to not have any basis in reality.

Of course, Wes and Woody are not stupid enough to paint themselves into a corner. This is why they have introduced the mysterious "Mr. Black" and other enigmatic government agents, who's job in life is too diligently erase any evidence of Bigfoot existence and wrong doing. These federal agents must have extraordinary talents because they have literally removed all evidence, including removing newspaper articles of events already published. Anytime somebody questions the lack of evidence regarding Bigfoot victims or destroyed property, the answer is always; everybody is too scared of the federal agency responsible for keeping Bigfoot secret.

The question that always comes into my head is this: If there's a federal agency in charge of hiding the existence of Bigfoot and making sure the public never finds out about their murderous behavior; why do they allow Sasquatch Chronicles to go on the air and not only discuss the activity of Bigfoot but also discuss the activity of the agency itself? In exacting detail, I might add .

Maybe there's an easier and more sensible answer. Such as; this show is for entertainment and its focus is selling advertising for a profit. I don't know, just tossing it out there as another option...

 

Thanks for the comment Cisco, and I’m glad to see on board again. You’re absolutely correct in questioning why some of these extraordinary claims are not made public. Maybe because people would go out their minds don't you think? It would literally turn their world upside down to know the truth. Then who is going to answer for withholding that from the public? You know how many times I’ve checked into claims by NPS and the stonewalling against releasing the numbers of missing persons in the parks? Lots of times but I also found nothing anywhere else posting and publishing that information either so I wonder do deduce there are no missing persons in the parks nationally because it isn’t broadcasted on the nightly news or do I consider what one author claims to be so, and he add some veracity to his claims.  

 

I challenge you or anyone else to make a quick list of agencies and pick a phone and call them, ask them if you can have number of Bigfoot reports in their venue of jurisdiction and see what their response to you is. Again I ask, knowing what you know, is everyone that has experienced an encounter lying or making thing s up, if the answer is yes then I guess this country is in serious need of psychiatric help.  If those things are nice and gentle giants then why aren’t public announcements encouraging people to feed them and other wild beasts outside of their doorsteps?  Seems to me it would dual purposes: One it would proof they exist a two it prove there is no man killer beast and this whole thing is one big charade made and created for entertainment.

 

I used NAMUS while tracking down a missing person of thirty some years. There are hundreds if not thousands of missing and found unidentified remains of people listed there.  There is a public side and law enforcement only side of the site that only allows access if you’re vetted beforehand and then you’re assigned a case worker of sorts to act a liaison between you and all the principals involved. Nowhere in the cause is the death that I noticed there anyone listed as being of victim of Bigfoot or other wild beasts domestic or otherwise.  Am I right to conclude that no one dies from animal attacks because it is not written? – Just asking

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[BigTreeWalker]

Plus 1 Cisco, that is my question also. But, you stated it so much better. These are extraordinary events, there should be something found about them in the regular news media. But it does make for great entertainment!

[Bonehead74]

It could be, might be, very well feasibly have been that they were very much occupied with other things more pressing rather than focusing on where the illumination was derived, Swwasasquatchproject.drinking purple coolaid????huh?ohlolOhhhh burnnnnn!Your turn.

Have you met Wag yet? You guys would hit it right off. At the very least, your debating styles are similar.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Bonehead74