Campsite Destroyed

[Cisco]

Gum

 

This forum would be no fun if we all agreed on everything. In fact, it's the opposing views that allow us to explore new ideas and help expand the possibilities of learning about our mysterious subject.

 

I like to play "devils advocate" as well because it helps look at all the angles. However, Garrets story has developed holes faster than he or SC can patch them.

 

Earlier I asked about the 45 casings because I heard Bob, in an interview, mention they were on all sides of the camp, as if "somebody was defending the camp from attackers." However, the casings were not seen in the original video, nor in any subsequent videos. Maybe he added the casings to help add color to his story? Who knows but they were not there when he made his video and he would have filmed them, had they been present...

 

 

Hello Cisco, good to see you back. You would contend that Bob Garrett does not have any documented encounters, if it were correct does it somehow negate his experience or mean his observation is less meaningless than yours or mine? I’m just wondering. Let’s reverse that a minute, he can easily contend you know nothing of the sort simply on the basis you lack demonstrable proof of what he knows or doesn’t know or sees or what didn’t see because you were not there. See what I am saying?  

 

This does not balance out well; does it? A better example would be if I was also telling a story about a crazy encounter with Bigfoot and Bob claimed my story was not true because I had no proof.

 

However, I have not made any claims about an encounter. I have just given my opinion about the veracity of Bob's story. Bob is making a claim, not giving his opinion. Two different concepts.

[ShadowBorn]

 

This forum would be no fun if we all agreed on everything. In fact, it's the opposing views that allow us to explore new ideas and help expand the possibilities of learning about our mysterious subject.

Cisco

This statement is very profound, You are absolutely correct. This forum would be a command of robots with no thought until imputed. 

[Guest]

GSE, I enjoy a good debate as well as any other.  Sometimes where there is smoke there is fire.  You obviously tried to smoke something out with the Garrett thread, I openly attempted same with the Black Ops thread.  There is just so much to many of these polarizing BF stories that to not get all points of view invited and uncover stuff is as bad as patently just sticking your head in the sand like some of our skeptics and say the **** things went extinct 15 years ago.  Saves them the investment of time and energy to deal with threads like ours, capiche?  

 

Anyhoo, I see Finding Bigfoot "rave" written all over this Garrett story, little else.  Good fun, wildly swinging flashlights with no focus on anything long enough to gain any perspective.   

 

As to my thread, there are several peculiar events in Bigfootology that started a trend.  Bigfoot killed by a downed tree in Oregon in the 1980's and body pinned......  forest service investigated, what became of it.   Witnesses including helicopter pilots and pilots family stating removal of BF bodies occurred on MSH after 1980 eruption, Batlle Mountain Fire Complex in Nevada resulted in severely burned sasquatch retrieved and administered aid.  

 

I could go on and on about black ops adventures and stories.  One of these days, the Project Bluebook of BF WILL hit the mat.  Whether any of us are alive to rejoice in that day is beyond my pay grade.  No harm in trying to grease the skids in advance of that moment  is my motto.  Carry on. 

 

It was much appreciated and most timely. Come back and visit sometime. Your PM doesn't receive any new messages. 

Gum

 

This forum would be no fun if we all agreed on everything. In fact, it's the opposing views that allow us to explore new ideas and help expand the possibilities of learning about our mysterious subject.

 

I like to play "devils advocate" as well because it helps look at all the angles. However, Garrets story has developed holes faster than he or SC can patch them.

 

Earlier I asked about the 45 casings because I heard Bob, in an interview, mention they were on all sides of the camp, as if "somebody was defending the camp from attackers." However, the casings were not seen in the original video, nor in any subsequent videos. Maybe he added the casings to help add color to his story? Who knows but they were not there when he made his video and he would have filmed them, had they been present...

 

 

 

This does not balance out well; does it? A better example would be if I was also telling a story about a crazy encounter with Bigfoot and Bob claimed my story was not true because I had no proof.

 

However, I have not made any claims about an encounter. I have just given my opinion about the veracity of Bob's story. Bob is making a claim, not giving his opinion. Two different concepts.

 

Hey you did just fine Cisco, no worries at all. Your presence on the board is always appreciated.

 This can go with any Bigfoot sighting, No one knows for sure what happen at that camp site. But we can discuss it. 

 

I just do not agree with that this is Bigfoot related. If it was, then why were they Bob and his son not attacked. If this was a rampage by a menacing animal, then why did it not attack again. You have eye shine, you see markings of trees, and you even have movement in the brush.  But again why no attack from the same animal or creature. 

 

You know the only time I ever felt like I might die was my first two up close encounters. Yet here I am writing on this board and still Alive,alive. hooya

 

All I know is that we cannot go and call our officers incompetent no matter what situation. If the police never made it out there so what. Maybe it was not as urgent at it seemed when they so called made a 911 call.

 

I live in Detroit and the police here are doing a great job for what they are being asked to do. I believe that all calls here in Detroit get prioritize. So maybe what happened at this camp site was not as urgent as it seemed. 

 

If he Bob was a researcher of these creatures he would know the truth. He would have discovered that these creatures are not aggressive but curious. They have questions about us as we have about them. They might think us as odd but to us they are scary. It is that fear that has been installed into us that makes them scary. Believe me they do not know better and they are like children. But until I see some one get eaten or I, then I will believe that they are cannibalistic.

 

Gum

You are doing a great job with this camp site thing. Believe me if they were cannibal's I would have shot one a long time ago. 

 

@ Johnny G - It is certainly a brain teaser Johnny G.  

 

@ Shadow Born – Thank you and always appreciate your presence on the thread site too!  

[Guest]

Way back when researchers used to come here, one of them told me a story. His cousin was a paramedic on a hospital helicopter & had told him the story, because he knew of the researcher's interest in BF.

 

The helicopter had been called out to pick up the victim of a "hunting accident" down in the river bottom one Friday night. The cousin said that when he saw the victim, his head had been twisted 180° & he was quite dead. He had been found lying on his stomach, but looking straight up. The rescue team that had brought him out said that there was a lot of blood, but none of it appeared to be from the victim.

 

The story his friends told was that they had gathered in camp for a hog hunt, earlier in the day. They had sat around BS'ing & drinking beer until the victim had noticed that it was getting late. He said he was going to get a hog & left in his boat, going up river. A while later, (I think it was dark by then), the others realized that he should be back, so some of them went looking for him. About a mile up the river, they found his boat with his rifle in it. Not far from the river, they found the dead hunter. The rifle had been fired & the pistol that he had with him had been emptied, but whatever he had shot was gone.

 

His cause of death was listed as a broken neck from a hunting accident & that was the end of it.

 

A few years later, I met "someone" that knew the rest of the story. But that is for the Paranormal Section.

A lot of people knew the details of his death, but it didn't take much for it to be "covered up".

 

@ Sassy – Good thanks posting!

 

@ Frap 10 – Welcome back

[Airdale]

Gum

 

This forum would be no fun if we all agreed on everything. In fact, it's the opposing views that allow us to explore new ideas and help expand the possibilities of learning about our mysterious subject.

 

I like to play "devils advocate" as well because it helps look at all the angles. However, Garrets story has developed holes faster than he or SC can patch them.

 

Earlier I asked about the 45 casings because I heard Bob, in an interview, mention they were on all sides of the camp, as if "somebody was defending the camp from attackers." However, the casings were not seen in the original video, nor in any subsequent videos. Maybe he added the casings to help add color to his story? Who knows but they were not there when he made his video and he would have filmed them, had they been present...

 

 

 

This does not balance out well; does it? A better example would be if I was also telling a story about a crazy encounter with Bigfoot and Bob claimed my story was not true because I had no proof.

 

However, I have not made any claims about an encounter. I have just given my opinion about the veracity of Bob's story. Bob is making a claim, not giving his opinion. Two different concepts.

 

The shell casings were from a different video of a different camp that had been abandoned but not torn up. It was along a lake shore in the same general area as the torn up camp. There were quite a number of items abandoned at the site, I believe some kind of stove or grill, camp chairs, etc. The shell casings were found in two groups in what might be surmised to be the two corners of the camp furthest from the lake shore and closest to the tree line. If I recall correctly they were .45 ACP cases. Bob posited that a person or persons were laying down covering fire while others retreated to vehicles. I suppose the video is still up, it's been over a year since I saw it.

[Guest]

The shell casings were from a different video of a different camp that had been abandoned but not torn up. It was along a lake shore in the same general area as the torn up camp. There were quite a number of items abandoned at the site, I believe some kind of stove or grill, camp chairs, etc. The shell casings were found in two groups in what might be surmised to be the two corners of the camp furthest from the lake shore and closest to the tree line. If I recall correctly they were .45 ACP cases. Bob posited that a person or persons were laying down covering fire while others retreated to vehicles. I suppose the video is still up, it's been over a year since I saw it.

 

Always grateful and always interesting points to the discussion Airdale, thanks for clarity. Does anyone know the name of the lake referred to as the one nearby in the campsite event? Would that be the same lake where the spent casing were located I wonder?  

[ShadowBorn]

 

The shell casings were from a different video of a different camp that had been abandoned but not torn up. It was along a lake shore in the same general area as the torn up camp.

 

So there were two camp sites at different times? one with casings at the scene of a 45 cal,and another with none. How far apart were the two incidents from each other? which came first the camp site with the casings? This would change my view of what might have happened. Everything is assumptions , we cannot take it all with a grain of salt.  

 

Maybe there was a incident where a creature had visited one camp , scared the crap out of those folks and they shot at it to get away. They were freaked out at what they seen and bugged out.

 

I had incident where we were camping in the northern part of Michigan. I had brought with me my M1 carbine and we started shooting it in camp, a camp that was being visited by these creatures. It was in the morning and we were shooting at this big thick tree, well unknowingly we did not know that there was a creature behind this tree. Well I packed my stuff and left the area and as I left no one had passed me on my way out. Another researcher was to meet back at the camp site with some one else. Well that researcher made it to the camp site and found the logs around our fire pit thrown about. even  a large log was wedge between these two tree's. You can read the incident on BFF 1.0 or the first BFF before the changes. It is all there to read and I there are pictures.

 

So maybe if everything lines up right with the two incidents, It might of have been done by a enraged creature. No one likes being shot and that means these creatures. This log wedge in the tree was big and heavy and there was no way of pulling it out.. But we knew then not to shoot our guns at trees.

[Guest]

Gum

 

This forum would be no fun if we all agreed on everything. In fact, it's the opposing views that allow us to explore new ideas and help expand the possibilities of learning about our mysterious subject.

 

I like to play "devils advocate" as well because it helps look at all the angles. However, Garrets story has developed holes faster than he or SC can patch them.

 

Earlier I asked about the 45 casings because I heard Bob, in an interview, mention they were on all sides of the camp, as if "somebody was defending the camp from attackers." However, the casings were not seen in the original video, nor in any subsequent videos. Maybe he added the casings to help add color to his story? Who knows but they were not there when he made his video and he would have filmed them, had they been present...

 

 

 

This does not balance out well; does it? A better example would be if I was also telling a story about a crazy encounter with Bigfoot and Bob claimed my story was not true because I had no proof.

 

However, I have not made any claims about an encounter. I have just given my opinion about the veracity of Bob's story. Bob is making a claim, not giving his opinion. Two different concepts.

 

Two entirely different points aren’t they Cisco?

1. An opinion is one giving thought with special knowledge and as an expert
2. A claim is to say something (you claim as truth) but another says it is not truth

Using your example you provided, Bob Garrett made a claim (something he says is truth) and you say yourself that you gave your opinion (with special knowledge as an expert) is that not so?  My steadfast contention all through this affair has been how can we possibly know unless we were there to attest to its efficacy one way or another... 

 

I understand your intended meaning to find truth and accuracy thus the word veracity in the Bob Garret event but in doing so, when you say you gave your opinion are you speaking from a position of an individual with special knowledge or some expertise? For me that is where the confusion rests unless we are speaking as an expert witness then it's all just pure conjecture all guess. If I’m wrong please show me where.  

Edited May 16, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[BigTreeWalker]

The shell casings were from a different video of a different camp that had been abandoned but not torn up. It was along a lake shore in the same general area as the torn up camp. There were quite a number of items abandoned at the site, I believe some kind of stove or grill, camp chairs, etc. The shell casings were found in two groups in what might be surmised to be the two corners of the camp furthest from the lake shore and closest to the tree line. If I recall correctly they were .45 ACP cases. Bob posited that a person or persons were laying down covering fire while others retreated to vehicles. I suppose the video is still up, it's been over a year since I saw it.

That was one of the main problems I had with the SC podcast with Bob Garrett that I posted the link to a while back. They were talking about several campsites throughout the area, serial killers, possible missing persons and it was all getting jumbled together while they were talking about the campsite this thread is about! One reason I can see for them doing this is for sensationalism. But it sure makes it hard to sort out specific facts.

[Guest]

So there were two camp sites at different times? one with casings at the scene of a 45 cal,and another with none. How far apart were the two incidents from each other? which came first the camp site with the casings? This would change my view of what might have happened. Everything is assumptions , we cannot take it all with a grain of salt.  

 

Maybe there was a incident where a creature had visited one camp , scared the crap out of those folks and they shot at it to get away. They were freaked out at what they seen and bugged out.

 

I had incident where we were camping in the northern part of Michigan. I had brought with me my M1 carbine and we started shooting it in camp, a camp that was being visited by these creatures. It was in the morning and we were shooting at this big thick tree, well unknowingly we did not know that there was a creature behind this tree. Well I packed my stuff and left the area and as I left no one had passed me on my way out. Another researcher was to meet back at the camp site with some one else. Well that researcher made it to the camp site and found the logs around our fire pit thrown about. even  a large log was wedge between these two tree's. You can read the incident on BFF 1.0 or the first BFF before the changes. It is all there to read and I there are pictures.

 

So maybe if everything lines up right with the two incidents, It might of have been done by a enraged creature. No one likes being shot and that means these creatures. This log wedge in the tree was big and heavy and there was no way of pulling it out.. But we knew then not to shoot our guns at trees.

 

Interesting post Shadow Born!

[roguefooter]

As to my thread, there are several peculiar events in Bigfootology that started a trend.  Bigfoot killed by a downed tree in Oregon in the 1980's and body pinned......  forest service investigated, what became of it.   Witnesses including helicopter pilots and pilots family stating removal of BF bodies occurred on MSH after 1980 eruption, Batlle Mountain Fire Complex in Nevada resulted in severely burned sasquatch retrieved and administered aid.  

 

 

People in the forestry service are constantly being hired and let go on a regular basis, with no requirement of a security clearance. If there were really events like this happening then there would be no reason for them to remain covered in secrecy. I know that people like to believe that the government will come and get you if you talk, but I have a very high clearance from the time I was in the military involving special weapons and have never seen or even heard of any secret  group going around threatening people 'in the know'. The threat of revealing secret information is a legal one, not some covert death squad.

Edited May 16, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest]

Though there may be or may not be some truth to the Garretts' allegations, the tug of words is largely driven by a desire to diminish condemnation of an individual’s stated words  based solely without personal knowledge or eye witness accounts.

 

Illustration: If we were charged with some violation of law, and it progressed to trial, and if trial by jury was our choice, my guess is we would never allow an accuser to present their testimony or evidence based on the manner in which it what was presented here in the court of public opinion. This not a court but at least viewers reading this can understand how very lacking it is.   

 

If we had a choice between fine and costs, incarceration or freedom we would attempt to learn all possible proper rules of evidence.  If your freedom depended on it and not simply a stranger's name as was the Garrett case, we would people to be more judicious and little more careful up there looking out for our best interest and question how somebody was  accused and how the opposition formed their evidence.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ksu4]

GSE, I am sure that you have the best of intentions and , i suspect, are motivated by what you deem to be very good reasons to post what you do. But (yet again), I fail to see what your point is here. Many times in this thread, you have attempted to explain your defense of this situation by bringing up completely different issues.

'If this were a court of law, many things would be different.' Of course, we can all agree on that. But so would the nature of the evidence presented. Or, 'I had friends who reported a sighting and got a lot of grief for it.' We are very sorry to hear it. People suck, sometimes. Their experience doesn't have any impact on this case, however.

My point is, when the known facts of this particular case are examined, there seems to be a lack of support for the story. Of course we weren't there, etc., etc., but thus far, every time new facts are brought to light, they point to this being either a mundane misunderstanding, or an outright fabrication. Every new fact brought to light also seemingly pushes you to create a new argument for the validity of this event.

If facts about this case, or even opinions with supporting arguments are presented, i think most people here are fairly receptive (with notable exceptions on both sides). I know that I would welcome the input of an experienced LEO/investigator. IMO, though, it weakens your argument to bring up unrelated events or hypothetical situations to continue to push for the validity of this story.

Respectfully,

K

[Guest Divergent1]

Gum, I owe you an apology. From reading these pages and past references you have made about the Sasquatch Chronicles, I thought you knew these guys personally. Based on those posts I thought you were indirectly promoting whatever money making schemes they might have planned. I would have just shrugged it off had you been a regular forum member. Since you are a member of the SC here I viewed your participation in this thread as a conflict of interest for obvious reasons if you review the R&G. At any rate, you played the devil's advocate so well, I thought you considered the incident real rather than as a "maybe".

[Guest]

Gum, I owe you an apology. From reading these pages and past references you have made about the Sasquatch Chronicles, I thought you knew these guys personally. Based on those posts I thought you were indirectly promoting whatever money making schemes they might have planned. I would have just shrugged it off had you been a regular forum member. Since you are a member of the SC here I viewed your participation in this thread as a conflict of interest for obvious reasons if you review the R&G. At any rate, you played the devil's advocate so well, I thought you considered the incident real rather than as a "maybe".

 

Thank you and apology accepted Divergent, it’s forgotten and we can move along.  You’re correct and perhaps I should have been clear, I do not know any of those men and they do not know me.  I don’t ever recall hearing their names until Bob Garrett made his cameo appearance on Sasquatch Chronicles.

 

Yes, I am contributing in the in the advocate role. I am just rolling a thread with nothing to gain or lose and enjoying the camaraderie and companionship the forum brings into my life during the time I spend on it. It’s a place where nobody owes anyone anything but honest interesting conversation and dialogue without any strings attached. Life is too short to waste on misunderstood words, anger or mundane things we just live it like it’s the last.

GSE, I am sure that you have the best of intentions and , i suspect, are motivated by what you deem to be very good reasons to post what you do. But (yet again), I fail to see what your point is here. Many times in this thread, you have attempted to explain your defense of this situation by bringing up completely different issues.

'If this were a court of law, many things would be different.' Of course, we can all agree on that. But so would the nature of the evidence presented. Or, 'I had friends who reported a sighting and got a lot of grief for it.' We are very sorry to hear it. People suck, sometimes. Their experience doesn't have any impact on this case, however.

My point is, when the known facts of this particular case are examined, there seems to be a lack of support for the story. Of course we weren't there, etc., etc., but thus far, every time new facts are brought to light, they point to this being either a mundane misunderstanding, or an outright fabrication. Every new fact brought to light also seemingly pushes you to create a new argument for the validity of this event.

If facts about this case, or even opinions with supporting arguments are presented, i think most people here are fairly receptive (with notable exceptions on both sides). I know that I would welcome the input of an experienced LEO/investigator. IMO, though, it weakens your argument to bring up unrelated events or hypothetical situations to continue to push for the validity of this story.

Respectfully,

K

 

Thank you KSY4, I welcome your comments.

 

Gumshoeye