Posted On: July 2, 2023

I thought a new post would be more appropriate. I listened to the episode.

I had to force myself because 15 minutes in I already knew there were inaccuracies.

I do not expect anyone to fully believe me.

I urge to research these things yourself.

Ask a vet you know.

Understand each installation (Army posts are not called bases by the by the Navy and Air Force have bases) operates a little differently.

I don't necessarily discredit the sighting,

I do disagree with the validity of the military dressing of the sighting.

Too many things don't add up to my experience on Ft Hood at that time.

Upfront, I do think the witnesses military bona fides are accurate. he said the right things, the right way.

Things only a vet would really know,

BUT.and I do mean a big hairy Sasquatch Butt here..I think he embellished and manipulated details to back a Bigfoot sighing and authenticate it with military service.

In other words using an Appeal To Authority to justify an encounter.

I am not calling the sighting into question.

I can't confirm not deny it but I do think the witness backed a sighting (real or not) into a fabrication to validate it.

The military details range from completely inaccurate or false to questionable. Which then makes me wonder why make that up just to justify a sighting?.

Then if the witness is willing to do that then why not make up the sighting as well?.

Before we launch the witness said no one wanted to go to Hood. Some did some didn't.

Hood was popular though.

Being the largest you were almost guaranteed to go there AND you could homestead.

Meaning you could go there. Do a 3-4 year tour. request a hardship tour (an assignment that didn't allow families) in Korea (a 1 year tour) in which case you would be allowed to pick your return duty station..which would be Ft Hood.

I knew a lot of NCOs that left their families at Hood while they bounced back and forth.

It created some stability, though that ability got harder the higher rank you went up due to available slots at hood or Korea. .

I should mention I do listen and read these stories because I would be happy if Bigfoot could be proven.

sadly I think the world is now so full of posers and with the popularity of paranormal/cryptid TV shows there's money in it.

Which only increases the chances of more fabrication.

Do I blame Wes?.

Not really he could vet better but then he would need an army of verified experts on details and topics to validate claims.

Which is why I tag podcasts like his as entertainment.

On to my analysis.

To recap, I was an Army Ordnance Officer at Ft Hood (now Cavazos but to be consistent I will keep at as Ft Hood) during the time the witness was stationed there.

I earned a commission from ROTC and was stationed at Hood from 1997 to 2003 (total service 1992 to 2003.2007 with IRR commitment). Long for an officer but I was in the 4ID and we were stopped lossed for Force 21 (nothing to do with 9-11).

Before that I was in the National Guard enlisted as a tank crewman. College, ROTC, then active duty.

The show notes were not entirely accurate and misleading.

Unless I missed it the witness did not say he was in Afghanistan previously as I attacked in my prologue post. He called himself a "straight leg" which means he wasn't airborne qualified.

This is conflicting since the notes clearly say he was a Ranger.

Why is this important?.

Because it was mentioned. Anytime someone uses a military credential they are doing so to add authority to their argument, just as I am doing.

He was a "straight leg" yet Wes put Ranger in the notes conflicts.

Did the witness tell Wes that or did Wes add that in?.

In the Army there are Ranger Qualified and Rangers.

The difference is that Qualified means they went to Ranger school and got the tab but did not serve in the the Ranger Regiment.

Rangers served/serve in the Regiment, and as confusing as it might be soldiers in the Regiment may or may not have the tab (been through the school).

You can look up this detail on wiki or other sites I won't deliberate too much more here. So the fact the witness says he was a straight leg means the entry that he was a Ranger is suspect.

All rangers are airborne qualified.have to be, its in the job description. you don't have to be Airborne qualified to just go to the course yet the odds of you getting into it without your jump wings is extremely unlikely, yet it is possible.

There is another detail that sets my spidey sense off that the witness was an E5 in 2002.

If he enlisted in 1993 he would have easily been an E6.

I am not judging the guy but there are valid reasons for this.

Without a copy of the military records (which can be done by FOIA) I won't speculate more, yet it does raise an eyebrow.

I was an Ordnance Officer. Ordnance officers back then (not sure about today) were kind of jack of all trades when it came to military logistics.

We did a lot and could/were trained to do a lot. I was at Hood for 5 years.

I loved my job.

​Post from user BuildingBigfoot at at reddit.

Posted On: July 2, 2023

I thought a new post would be more appropriate. I listened to the episode.

I had to force myself because 15 minutes in I already knew there were inaccuracies.

I do not expect anyone to fully believe me.

I urge to research these things yourself.

Ask a vet you know.

Understand each installation (Army posts are not called bases by the by the Navy and Air Force have bases) operates a little differently.

I don't necessarily discredit the sighting,

I do disagree with the validity of the military dressing of the sighting.

Too many things don't add up to my experience on Ft Hood at that time.

Upfront, I do think the witnesses military bona fides are accurate. he said the right things, the right way.

Things only a vet would really know,

BUT.and I do mean a big hairy Sasquatch Butt here..I think he embellished and manipulated details to back a Bigfoot sighing and authenticate it with military service.

In other words using an Appeal To Authority to justify an encounter.

I am not calling the sighting into question.

I can't confirm not deny it but I do think the witness backed a sighting (real or not) into a fabrication to validate it.

The military details range from completely inaccurate or false to questionable. Which then makes me wonder why make that up just to justify a sighting?.

Then if the witness is willing to do that then why not make up the sighting as well?.

Before we launch the witness said no one wanted to go to Hood. Some did some didn't.

Hood was popular though.

Being the largest you were almost guaranteed to go there AND you could homestead.

Meaning you could go there. Do a 3-4 year tour. request a hardship tour (an assignment that didn't allow families) in Korea (a 1 year tour) in which case you would be allowed to pick your return duty station..which would be Ft Hood.

I knew a lot of NCOs that left their families at Hood while they bounced back and forth.

It created some stability, though that ability got harder the higher rank you went up due to available slots at hood or Korea. .

I should mention I do listen and read these stories because I would be happy if Bigfoot could be proven.

sadly I think the world is now so full of posers and with the popularity of paranormal/cryptid TV shows there's money in it.

Which only increases the chances of more fabrication.

Do I blame Wes?.

Not really he could vet better but then he would need an army of verified experts on details and topics to validate claims.

Which is why I tag podcasts like his as entertainment.

On to my analysis.

To recap, I was an Army Ordnance Officer at Ft Hood (now Cavazos but to be consistent I will keep at as Ft Hood) during the time the witness was stationed there.

I earned a commission from ROTC and was stationed at Hood from 1997 to 2003 (total service 1992 to 2003.2007 with IRR commitment). Long for an officer but I was in the 4ID and we were stopped lossed for Force 21 (nothing to do with 9-11).

Before that I was in the National Guard enlisted as a tank crewman. College, ROTC, then active duty.

The show notes were not entirely accurate and misleading.

Unless I missed it the witness did not say he was in Afghanistan previously as I attacked in my prologue post. He called himself a "straight leg" which means he wasn't airborne qualified.

This is conflicting since the notes clearly say he was a Ranger.

Why is this important?.

Because it was mentioned. Anytime someone uses a military credential they are doing so to add authority to their argument, just as I am doing.

He was a "straight leg" yet Wes put Ranger in the notes conflicts.

Did the witness tell Wes that or did Wes add that in?.

In the Army there are Ranger Qualified and Rangers.

The difference is that Qualified means they went to Ranger school and got the tab but did not serve in the the Ranger Regiment.

Rangers served/serve in the Regiment, and as confusing as it might be soldiers in the Regiment may or may not have the tab (been through the school).

You can look up this detail on wiki or other sites I won't deliberate too much more here. So the fact the witness says he was a straight leg means the entry that he was a Ranger is suspect.

All rangers are airborne qualified.have to be, its in the job description. you don't have to be Airborne qualified to just go to the course yet the odds of you getting into it without your jump wings is extremely unlikely, yet it is possible.

There is another detail that sets my spidey sense off that the witness was an E5 in 2002.

If he enlisted in 1993 he would have easily been an E6.

I am not judging the guy but there are valid reasons for this.

Without a copy of the military records (which can be done by FOIA) I won't speculate more, yet it does raise an eyebrow.

I was an Ordnance Officer. Ordnance officers back then (not sure about today) were kind of jack of all trades when it came to military logistics.

We did a lot and could/were trained to do a lot. I was at Hood for 5 years.

I loved my job.

​Post from user BuildingBigfoot at at reddit.