Jump to content
norseman

Bigfoot Police / Wildlife Reports.

Recommended Posts

Guest

Dmakers suggestion that all sightings are hallucinations or mis id's are my favorite DWA

Edited by ItsAsquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ That is not my suggestion. Perhaps you should reread and pay closer attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

^^^That's right, ItsASquatch.  If we pay attention to how reality works...his suggestion is even more fantastical than that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

Can we at least acknowledge the irony inherent in using the Arundel Mills Mall report as evidence in this thread considering the fact that the officer who investigated saw the creature and stated in his official report that it was a bear? Can I also get an ironic round of applause for DWA who has written over 18% of the posts in this thread even though he denies that police officers will investigate any call involving sassy? 

 

DWA

Posted 18 April 2014 - 01:01 PM

ohiobill, on 11 Apr 2014 - 6:57 PM, said:snapback.png

I think Drew nailed it. If these sightings are actually happening as described then someone is calling for help when they get scared. Whether they think it's a man, a bear or a bigfoot folks will call if these claims are taking place.

Got proof of that?

 

If I called the cops and told them a bigfoot was right in front of me eating two of my children

 

1) I'll never see a cop, because

2) they're too busy laughing.

 

Period.

Edited by ohiobill
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

Can we at least acknowledge the irony inherent in using the Arundel Mills Mall report as evidence in this thread considering the fact that the officer who investigated saw the creature and stated in his official report that it was a bear?

We can, so long as for clarity's sake we also understand that 1) The Office never witnessed the animal ( other than eye shine ) as the Construction workers did IE extremely tall and moving on two legs as opposed to four 2) The Officer found huge human shaped tracks and not regular Black Bear sized Bear shaped tracks and 3) The references to Bear in the report are referencing other dates etc of Bear sightings in an area that Bears habitat.

I'm not saying this that day was a Sasquatch but it most certainly can't be determined, as per the witnesses observations, that it was as straightforward as being a Bear, especially when you add the Officer in questions track find and acknowledge ten rest of his Bear talks it within the report doesn't have a great deal to do with what happened that day as this is a place where Bears frequent anyway it seems.

Here's part 2 of the report for clarity's sake, so people can see the entire report and make their own minds up of they can, which I can't.

And before you say " Well why are you offering it as evidence then ? " I'm not. I'm showing it in reply to dmaker so request because it's a Police Report that gives description of it more in line to a Sasquatch than a Bear, but was said to be a Bear officially by a Police Officer who didn't see it.

The reason why skeptics would say its a Bear is because they don't know that Sasquatches exist.

The reason why some would say Sasquatch is because they are desperate for Sasquatches to exist.

The reason why I say I don't know is because even though I know Sasquatches exist, it could have been one or it could have been a Bear.

So long as we have complete clarity and aren't influenced completely either way because it suits our bias, everything's good.;)

post-136-0-03489400-1402391766_thumb.jpg

Edit : Please excuse the spelling at times, it's the **** iPad, my sausage fingers and predictive text which isn't that great at predicting anything.

Edited by BobbyO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LarryP

 

 

 

If I called the cops and told them a bigfoot was right in front of me eating two of my children

 

1) I'll never see a cop, because

2) they're too busy laughing.

 

Period.

 

 

OK. That's easy enough to prove or disprove.

 

Call the Cops and tell them that a BF is eating your children right in front of you.

 

$10 will get you $20 that you'll see a Cop in short order and you'll be spending at least a couple of nights in the Hooskow as a result.

 

Period!

 

Do I have to explain why? Or perhaps you might would like to retract that statement after applying some critical thinking skills?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ No one is disputing that Larry. The counter contention was made by DWA that if you call 911 and mention bigfoot that the police will not come at all. Period. It had nothing to do with the consequences of their arrival. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Well there are lots of track reports which, if they were faked, the only thing one can think is "well, it takes all kinds of experts in primate foot anatomy to make a world."

A hoaxer sent hoaxed casts to Krantz them and Krantz endorsed them.

 

The hoaxer then came forward and revealed his motive:

 

To dupe Krantz.

 

Krantz was duped.

 

This D|ID happen btw. 

 

As for the fish and game people, well, ummm I just wanted to point out that such tracks have indeed been faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

The problem with hoaxing is that Meldrum is quite clear about what he looks for to rule out a hoax.     So anyone knowledgeable with his work can put together something that might and probably would fool Meldrum.     I have been secretive about where I do field work just for that reason.      I am sure there are people out there that would delight in fooling me.     Not only do I look at a print carefully to try to differentiate it from human I take into account where I find it.     A hoaxer wants his work found.    Off trail, miles from human access, the probability that a given footprint is authentic BF increases.   But it never reaches 100% which is what the skeptics seem to want.  

 

 I watched a 2010 video last night that had Meldrum, Bindernegal,  and some Eastern biologist skeptics.     The statements the skeptics made had me shouting at the TV.    What pompous idiots.   Meldrum would have taken the biologist apart in a debate.   She made a comment that the footprints casts he has are too distinct.    Animals in the wild like chimpanzees drag their feet and do not make distinct footprints.    Of course you fool, chimpanzees are barely bipedal and waddle more than walk.    She also must never have watched the gait demonstrated in the P/G film where Patty lifts her legs high then plants each foot ahead.    If and when existence is proven, I want to find that woman, walk in to her office and ask her what she says now.    Would she like to retract her ridiculous public statements?   I wonder if someone how someone that public and open with her skepticism will fare after proof of existence.   If I ran the department I would fire her for having such a closed mind now.      Randy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

You should address bill in that regard, not me.

That quote in your post (#174) is something DWA said Larry, not Ohio Bill. I think most of us are in agreement with what you said in response to it however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

The problem with hoaxing is that Meldrum is quite clear about what he looks for to rule out a hoax.     So anyone knowledgeable with his work can put together something that might and probably would fool Meldrum.     I have been secretive about where I do field work just for that reason.      I am sure there are people out there that would delight in fooling me.     Not only do I look at a print carefully to try to differentiate it from human I take into account where I find it.     A hoaxer wants his work found.    Off trail, miles from human access, the probability that a given footprint is authentic BF increases.   But it never reaches 100% which is what the skeptics seem to want.  

 

 I watched a 2010 video last night that had Meldrum, Bindernegal,  and some Eastern biologist skeptics.     The statements the skeptics made had me shouting at the TV.    What pompous idiots.   Meldrum would have taken the biologist apart in a debate.   She made a comment that the footprints casts he has are too distinct.    Animals in the wild like chimpanzees drag their feet and do not make distinct footprints.    Of course you fool, chimpanzees are barely bipedal and waddle more than walk.    She also must never have watched the gait demonstrated in the P/G film where Patty lifts her legs high then plants each foot ahead.    If and when existence is proven, I want to find that woman, walk in to her office and ask her what she says now.    Would she like to retract her ridiculous public statements?   I wonder if someone how someone that public and open with her skepticism will fare after proof of existence.   If I ran the department I would fire her for having such a closed mind now.      Randy

Most likely she believes the PGF to be a hoax and therefore could not care less the gait demonstrated by a person in a costume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×