Campsite Destroyed

[Guest]

Well I impressed that some of my ideas and thoughts resonated with a few. I may be wrong but I think she is a she, and she is probably monitoring the thread and others as we speak, just a guess of course. Stay curious and ask questions my friend.

[Guest]

Well, the concept that YOU are a ''detective'' Gum, at this point, and to be taken so easily, well, .....well......

 

Thanks for the looky-up Cisco, Im a concept guy, not a nuts and bolts guy...

Actually I'm not kidding. I looked at the profile and I can see why Wag has this suspicion. This member joined on this forum within the same date that accusations were made, on this thread, about the veracity of Wes & Woody's sighting.

 

This has been her most active thread. I'd have to double check but I think its been the only thread in which she's participated. Although I'm not sure about this. Shortly after Wags accusations, she disappeared and has not returned.

 

You nailed it, yet, some people still believe? Really?  LoL. Hey, its a Bigfoot site.

 

Really, I can guess ''his'' IQ at this point also, with the given information if you would like.

 

The connections are rather obvious, to me only? Really? Compare SC ep 104, and ''her'' vulgar answers, vulgarity is part of the personality profile, ''detective''. Draw some lines, don't think he's going to get into a cheer leader outfit and claim me correct, when I openly predicted the failure of Falcon Project, Olympic Project, and various other predictions, and no-one pays the mandated $20.00 for my amazing talents.

 

Crap, well, I was wrong on the moose thing, but I had to find the video that proved myself wrong.   But that was a looooonnnggg time ago.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Wag

[Guest]

Well, the concept that YOU are a ''detective'' Gum, at this point, and to be taken so easily, well, .....well......

 

Thanks for the looky-up Cisco, Im a concept guy, not a nuts and bolts guy...

Actually I'm not kidding. I looked at the profile and I can see why Wag has this suspicion. This member joined on this forum within the same date that accusations were made, on this thread, about the veracity of Wes & Woody's sighting.

 

This has been her most active thread. I'd have to double check but I think its been the only thread in which she's participated. Although I'm not sure about this. Shortly after Wags accusations, she disappeared and has not returned.

 

You nailed it, yet, some people still believe? Really?  LoL. Hey, its a Bigfoot site.

 

Really, I can guess ''his'' IQ at this point also, with the given information if you would like.

 

The connections are rather obvious, to me only? Really? Compare SC ep 104, and ''her'' vulgar answers, vulgarity is part of the personality profile, ''detective''. Draw some lines, don't think he's going to get into a cheer leader outfit and claim me correct, when I openly predicted the failure of Falcon Project, Olympic Project, and various other predictions, and no-one pays the mandated $20.00 for my amazing talents.

 

Crap, well, I was wrong on the moose thing, but I had to find the video that proved myself wrong.   But that was a looooonnnggg time ago.

 

@ Wag … LOL … No title please, I gave my license up before I retired … SC was a boondoggle, the Bob Garrett remains somewhat of a mystery and here we are created a mystery around a fellow member …  Let my instincts be my guide and they tell me you may be incorrect again, but who’s keeping score …  

[Guest]

I am keeping score. Ok, so this utube seems familiar: Basicly, the SAME story as told by Garrett, but decades earlier:

 

[Guest]

Wag, thanks for the video.  Personally, it smells of BS and I could punch a few small holes in it, beyond the fact it is essentially just a retelling of told stories (I do have a healthy respect for Bobbie Short though).  BUT, while it could be seen as inspiration for Garrett's reports, it could also be used against one of the main arguments against Garrett's report.  That being the behavior doesn't match what we "know".  Well, if this story is believed, it sets a pattern of behavior, not only about Sasquatch killing campers, but cover up activity as well.  I'm not sold, but I'm a bit crusty and skeptical.  At the same time, if it was found that Garrett had no knowledge of these stories (which we'll never know), that would add a bit of credibility in the eyes of some.

 

Again, thanks for this because it adds information.  Information is what we need and it's all good, no matter which side you're on.  But, I can see this sort of reporting to cut both ways and likely not change many minds.  

 

Do you know if the "newspaper" looking article shown at the end is an actual newspaper?  Or was it a BF group periodical?  I'm curious about that, but don't have time this morning to investigate.  Thanks again.

[Guest]

@Wag - Thank you for sharing and posting that link. For a moment I thought I was listening to more hogwash until some of the more respected names in Bigfootery popped up, names like Bobbie Short, John Greene and Ray Crowe. All of these people are names held up in the highest esteem among enthusiast’s and are or were well respected among their peers. None of those individuals have ever been associated or known to have the slightest propensity for putting out hogwash I am aware of.  

 

It was only after realizing it wasn’t referring the great state of Texas they were discussing but California of all places that caused me to give a second look.

 

I would encourage readers to go back to the beginning of this thread and read it before drawing conclusions. While some may find it questionable to poke the bear by appealing to all of the reasons why Bob Garrett cannot be true here we are once again with more nearly identical accounts of campsite destruction so eerily similar to that of Bob Garrett’s account, it would be easy to believe it’s the same old bologna sandwich but it’s not.   Nonsense. In fact, the Garrett event occurred in 2014 and the link speaks of a very similar one in all ways to numerous to count on October 25, 1999.

 

The question remains then, how can it be that simple? Why do people keep making up these fallacies up if there not even a hint of truth in them and what does that say about us?  I know many posts ago I suggested readers go back and review some of John Greene’s original data sheets and pay special note to some of the witness information and it may surprise you to know who some of the witnesses were.

 

Key Words

Once again, the information is there plain as day and clear as anything I had ever seen in my life.  There are some red flag words or points of signature words that stand out such as the expose Wag linked, points very similar to that of the Bob Garrett account. These red flag words or key phrases are like business cards if you will that reoccur in patterns associated with these particular types of incidents.

 

Examples:

Campsite Involved

Destruction

Flurry of Unexplained Activity

Questioned Why Individual Was There

Interrogated

Nature of questions

Blame on animal attack

BLM

LEO was under strict orders not to discuss it

 

 

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Cisco]

I've been thinking of the slow but very perceptible change of attitude towards the behavior of these creatures.

 

When I first started looking into the Sasquatch phenomenon, the prevailing belief was that Sasquatch were fairly peaceful, shy creatures.  Since then, I've noticed a shift in attitude, within this community, towards the general disposition of these creatures. They've gone from gentle forest dwellers to potentially dangerous and cunning predators.

 

I've never had an encounter with a Sasquatch so I can only give my opinion on how these creatures behave. However, logic dictates they are extremely dangerous. Any large predator is dangerous by sheer size and natural weaponry. Couple that with a well developed brain, the ability to reason and you have a creature that's far deadlier than any animal in North America.

 

Not that long ago, any commentary about the potential danger from Sasquatch, was dismissed as being crazy and sensationalistic. The BFRO used to be one of the strongest proponents of a peaceful, warm and fuzzy Sasquatch. To say otherwise could cost you your forum membership.

 

More and more, we're hearing reports that these creatures may predate and kill humans, more often than we ever suspected. I don't think these creatures deliberately act  "outwardly" aggressive or menacing, in the sense that they don't try and appear threatening, like a snarling wolf or bear. Instead, I think they're smart enough to not attract attention to themselves but, given the opportunity, they will hunt and kill humans as a food source. An unarmed human, alone in their habitat, would be an easy and tempting target for a Sasquatch.

 

The reason we don't hear about this predation is because they don't leave behind much, if any evidence. We don't know anything about their feeding behavior so its reasonable to think they kill their prey and then transport it, whole, to a safer area, in order to feed without disruption. Because they leave behind very few clues, nobody would ever suspect Sasquatch as a culprit in the disappearance of hikers and campers.

 

However, the behavior I described does not line up with the reports of violent attacks on camp sights. I don't see why a Sasquatch would risk a violent encounter, like this, in order to obtain food. I suppose its possible, that attacks on camp sights, involve younger, less experienced Sasquatch. Even then, I don't see why they would take the risk of discovery or injury when it would be much easier to pick off campers as they strayed into the woods, to hike or relieve themselves. If these types of attacks really occur, then its for reasons other than the need to obtain food. If this truly is the case, then we're dealing with an animal that does things based off emotion, rather than biological necessity. This would elevate Sasquatch to a level of lethality currently only occupied by man.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

To quote Ian Fleming: "Once is a happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

 

Completely ruling out the possibility of homicidal BF behaviors is, well, ridiculous. "Tamed" wild animals (lions, tigers) have been known to attack people. Even domesticated animals like dogs and cats attack humans. In fact, displaced aggression is a known behavior in house cats. 

 

The question we should ask isn't "Does Big Foot kill people?" but rather, "what's the probability Big Foot kills people?" and that number can only be obtained via analysis of the available data.

 

But that is off-topic for this thread.

[Bonehead74]

The most important question to me is who has been killed by bigfoot? At least prove that a person (or persons) has been killed or disappeared before trying to pin it on bigfoot. In the case at hand, no one can even show that a life has been lost, let alone that a bigfoot is responsible.

We need more detailed and reliable information, otherwise we're tilting at windmills.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bonehead74

[BigTreeWalker]

Here's a link to a written account of the link Wag posted.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/inyo_county.htm

The campsite being destroyed is a 3rd hand account and it occurred in the mid to late 70's. It is admitted in the report that no verification was done. The interview of a Rich Grumley occurred on 25 Oct 1999. His report is second hand.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

The most important question to me is who has been killed by bigfoot? At least prove that a person (or persons) has been killed or disappeared before trying to pin it on bigfoot. In the case at hand, no one can even show that a life has been lost, let alone that a bigfoot is responsible.

We need more detailed and reliable information, otherwise we're tilting at windmills.

 

That would require require the authorities acknowledging Big Foot exists.  The authorities acknowledge that bears exist, venomous snakes exist, people exist so the deaths they cause are attributed to them on death certificates and supporting documents.

 

When I watch the Garrett video, I don't get the impression that Garrett saw the camp and immediately thought "Big Foot done it!"  I think he came to that conclusion after he saw the bare footprints and the scope of destruction in the camp. Does this 'prove' BF did it? No, it does not. But Garrett concludes it does via the evidence he saw: trashed camp, no campers, foot prints, drag marks and what he thought was blood. I can't say Garrett's conclusion was incorrect because videotaping causes a distortion in the images: it flattens things out and distorts depth perception. (But I can say that in the video there is what sounds like a helicopter flying in the very, very distant background)

 

Frankly, we don't know if the campers got into a fight, abandoned the camp and then a family of BFs trashed the place or if BFs trashed the camp when the campers were fishing (and when the campers returned they left ASAP) or if humans other than the campers trashed the place. There are too many possibilities even if we toss BF into it.

 

That's why I've written previously that Big Foot muddies this entire incident. Remove Big Foot from the equation and we have a destroyed camp site. Moreover it was a campsite that was hastily abandoned (camp fire still glowing, camping equipment left behind, food left behind, etc.)  Sure they could have been a bunch of jerks who went camping and felt like this wasn't their scene and left everything behind. But I don't think most people would have done that (especially penny-pinching cheapskates like me----if I was forced to abandon camp, I would go back the next morning to retrieve my stuff: unless I thought my health and welfare was at risk going back there). 

[Bonehead74]

You seem to miss my point entirely. Bigfoot is irrelevant to the discussion.

Corpus delecti: If we can't demonstrate that a crime/killing/murder/what-have-you has actually been committed, we have no grounds to seek, let alone name, a perpetrator.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

You seem to miss my point entirely. Bigfoot is irrelevant to the discussion.

Corpus delecti: If we can't demonstrate that a crime/killing/murder/what-have-you has actually been committed, we have no grounds to seek, let alone name, a perpetrator.

 

And you've missed my point, because I stated in my post and in previous posts that Big Foot muddies the entire Garrett incident.

 

And you've missed the part where I wrote:" When I watch the Garrett video, I don't get the impression that Garrett saw the camp and immediately thought "Big Foot done it!"  I think he came to that conclusion after he saw the bare footprints and the scope of destruction in the camp. Does this 'prove' BF did it? No, it does not. But Garrett concludes it does via the evidence he saw: trashed camp, no campers, foot prints, drag marks and what he thought was blood. I can't say Garrett's conclusion was incorrect because videotaping causes a distortion in the images: it flattens things out and distorts depth perception." otherwise, you would not have troubled yourself defining corpus delecti .

 

And i think you've missed the point that Garrett believed Big Foot was involved after seeing what he saw of the camp. So from his perspective, corpus delecti indeed.

 

That is his opinion: Big Foot done it. It's not my opinion. But it is his. He could be wrong, just like I could be wrong (because I don't delusions of infallibility).

[Guest]

Dead men tell no tales meaning there would be no Corpus delecti or body for evidence or crime if the subject is consumed or deceased thus cannot explain his own or her demise.  

 

Corpus delecti -  Latin word meaning body f crime.

[Guest crabshack]

Corpus delecti: If we can't demonstrate that a crime/killing/murder/what-have-you has actually been committed, we have no grounds to seek, let alone name, a perpetrator.

 

What if they know that, and act accordingly.