Bigfoot Police / Wildlife Reports.

[Guest WesT]

Wouldn't their insurance cover it regardless? Would your insurance company cover it if a bear or human caused the damage? 

I still don't understand what is keeping the people having these encounters from grabbing photos and why wouldn't their neighbors be noticing the destruction and calling the police?

A police report saying a bear destroyed my fence or a unicorn destroyed my fence. hmmm which one is going to fly? I'm not sure if you've ever tried to collect on any kind of insurance claim but as a rule if they can find a way to get out of paying a claim, they will.

 

Even if I saw a unicorn destroy my fence and had a pic of it I would avoid having any of that in a police report to turn into my insurance co. I would say a bear, pony, horse, anything, but not a unicorn.

 

That might explain why those type of police reports are very few and far between.

 

As far as paying out of pocket, if it were me, and a unicorn did a lot damage, and i somehow knew that as a fact, I would stay mum about that when police came to investigate. So I would say no and the reasons are obvious to me.

[gigantor]

Property insurance doesn't depend on the cause of the damage. It is a policy that covers property damage regardless...  mortgages require it that way. Unless you purposely set the house on fire or blow it up, something like that. But even then, I think they'll cover it anyway because the bank requires it. The only exception I'm aware of is a flood.

 

There is no need to specify the cause, you just call your agent and say "I woke up this morning and the roof was broken" or whatever.

Edited June 5, 2014 by gigantor

[Guest WesT]

So not only is my point moot, so is the argument itself.

[gigantor]

and if your house is in a flood plain, the bank requires flood insurance.

[gigantor]

So not only is my point moot, so is the argument itself.

 

Well, if somebody owned the property outright and there is no mortgage, then there is no requirement to have homeowner's insurance.

 

You'd be a fool not to have it, but I suppose some people don't. The policies are standard. Maybe special (cheaper) policies exist with other stipulations...  but it's probably not worth the paperwork for the insurance company since the difference in cost would be minimal. My homeowner policy is $300/year, how much cheaper can a policy with other stipulations get?  $250?

 

Homeowner policies cover standards set by the banks as far as I know.

Edited June 5, 2014 by gigantor

[norseman]

Why do we always fall into a philosophical debate???

Hold my beer, thanks for the added reports.

Anyhow Dmaker, did you get what you were looking for? Iam not expecting you to change your mind but I do think we have demonstrated police and federal involvement with this mystery.

[ohiobill]

Norse, it has never been disputed by serious researchers of this subject that calling 911 will get a response to a call for help involving large unknown animals. Despite continued misinformation about this subject it is obvious that you will get a response and that dedicated responders will do their best to figure out what is going on if called. This only makes it more suspect that people having recurrent activity which would reasonably involve calling the police aren't doing so.

 

What hasn't been demonstrated is that an immediate response from police or park rangers will necessarily corroborate a call. If trained personnel familiar with the area aren't able to find evidence of sassy, such as in your 911 call or actually conclude that a known animal was responsible for the sighting after seeing the creature (as in the Arundel Mills report - http://userpages.umbc.edu/~frizzell/Reports/PoliceRPT_2adj.jpg) how much stock can we put into a standard BFRO report conducted weeks or even years later?

[southernyahoo]

I think the lesson with 911 calls is to not say the "B" word.

[dmaker]

Some reports and legends suggest there is a type of being that makes a particular sound described in a single word. It is found in literature, legend and contemporary reports reputed to be made by a wildman or Sasquatch.

 

Hypothesis....There is a biological entity that makes this sound and often heard by people. The sound could be made by a known animal and is therefore falsifiable.

 

To test.......conduct audio surveys to collect possible examples of the sound and confirm with witnesses of it's similarity or compare with other previously recorded example also suspected to be from a bigfoot..

But you are not testing the anecdote, you are testing an audio sample, which is of course falsifiable. So, yes I think I do see your point that while the anecdote itself may not be falsifiable, i.e. I heard an animal making a strange noise last night, but it may contain something that is, at least, testable. But in itself the original anecdote is evidence of nothing more than people claim to hear sounds. If you travel to the location and fail to hear sounds it does not disprove the original anecdote as that is impossible.  Just like if the claim was I saw bigfoot in my backyard last night is followed up on and no bigfoot found, does not prove bigfoot was not in your backyard. And conversely if bigfoot is found, does not prove bigfoot was actually in your backyard when you claimed he was. See what I mean?  The truth of an witness report is impossible to ascertain scientifically. Therefore they cannot be considered scientific evidence. They can be used for follow up which may lead to something testable, but the story itself could never be nullified.

[dmaker]

"I think the lesson with 911 calls is to not say the "B" word."

 

How is that the lesson?

[Guest LarryP]

Anyhow Dmaker, did you get what you were looking for? Iam not expecting you to change your mind but I do think we have demonstrated police and federal involvement with this mystery.

 

So what say you, dmaker?

 

See NARCAP, upthread.

[dmaker]

Yes, I already said thank-you once. Provide an address and I'll send flowers if you wish.  

[Guest LarryP]

What did you thank me for?

[SWWASAS]

I am with Norseman on this.     Debating philosophy, evidence validity, etc forever is not going to progress scientific acceptance until a body or skeleton is in a stable and safe environment with interested and objective scientists with the appropriate credentials.       If there is a cover up by the government it could be confiscated at any point.      Scientists could complete their study and declare the species but if the evidence disappears they have nothing but a story to tell.      Science has balked at the possibility of existence and changing that mind set will take time and verification.     Scientists do not believe each other any more readily than we do here.  Especially when some declaration of existence flies in the face of scientific conjecture.   A skeleton would have to be dated and extraction from the soil well documented.    Show up with a skeleton without evidence where it came from and the first big question would be OK where in Africa did this come from?    If it was dug up in North America you better have detailed evidence showing the extraction.    The only thing that can come of witness reports is that people like Meldrum have decided that there must be something out there and get interested enough to apply their own areas of scientific study.     I don't even think a sighting by a group of scientists in the field would be accepted without a body.     The mountain gorilla had been seen,   but until one was shot and the body brought out, no one would believe it existed.   

 

As far as myself, I got into it like Meldrum after reading hundreds of witness reports and examining footprint evidence.   Foot print evidence and DNA is the only thing tangible that can be studied.    Photographs are no longer validation of anything due to GGI, advanced costuming, etc.     I was of course skeptical until I found my first footprint in the mountains.    More footprint finds, vocalization encounters,  a close encounter with a photograph,  chest beating encounter,  all are evidence to me of creatures in my research area with behaviors that are worth study.        If and when scientific acceptance happens, then the only thing I can hope to add is some observed data on behaviors.    Perhaps we need a Jane Goodall to interact and learn.  I feel that my group of BF know what I am up to and do not like it.  Their behavior towards me has changed with time and is getting more hostile.     I am aware of habitation situations that are very similar to a Goodall situation,  but the women involved are not scientists, are more interested in protecting BF from mankind than learning from them, and I do not think anything will be learned from their experience. 

 

Proof is not easy and is probably beyond the efforts of any individual no matter what his credentials are.     You don't see scientists lined up to examine Meldrum's footprint casts.     If they already have interest or belief they come and look, but worry about their own reputation and may not even do that.      If footprints prove anything Meldrum will get the credit.   So why would they stick out their neck and do parallel study?   Certainly if they thought Meldrum wrong, they would love to show that.    Nothing delights a scientist more than blowing some other scientists theory out of the water.    They are just like many here.       Randy  

[dmaker]

What did you thank me for?

I'm not thanking you for anything. Norse asked if my request was being fulfilled. I said yes, thank you for supplying some report documentation.  Then you seemed to be repeating his question. Otherwise, what was the point of your " what say you"?