Old Dog Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 http://www.wset.com/story/30058295/bedford-co-dispatch-gets-bigfoot-call
Bodhi Posted September 18, 2015 Posted September 18, 2015 interesting. so the things which clicked for me: woman didn't report what she claimed to have seen for two days, the deputy sent out didn't find anything although the woman claimed to have seen prints two days later, the dispatcher had not gotten such a call in 10 years on the job/ the woman is new to the area (I'd love to know where the anonymous woman is from, it might be very interesting). Those are the items which red flagged for me. What parts of the report sparked for you O.D. and prompted you to post the report?
BobbyO Posted September 18, 2015 SSR Team Posted September 18, 2015 Not much activity report wise in that specific county previously, plenty in bordering counties though in that part of VA.
Old Dog Posted September 19, 2015 Author Posted September 19, 2015 interesting. so the things which clicked for me: woman didn't report what she claimed to have seen for two days, the deputy sent out didn't find anything although the woman claimed to have seen prints two days later, the dispatcher had not gotten such a call in 10 years on the job/ the woman is new to the area (I'd love to know where the anonymous woman is from, it might be very interesting). Those are the items which red flagged for me. What parts of the report sparked for you O.D. and prompted you to post the report? The prompt for me on this one was the total lack of anything to back up the story, then, for me, the topper was her remaining anonymous. I basically discount just about any account that wants to stay anonymous, yet wants to report with so much detail what is basically a drive by sighting. I see no reason why there would be no prints found after two days if there were prints initially. Like I've said before, I'm a skeptic that leans towards existence, and believe that it is reports like this that toss the blanket of deniability over the BF issue. Seems like most reports, that I read at least, are of this general vein. A nice story, but no meat to it.
Guest Posted September 19, 2015 Posted September 19, 2015 The woman told ABC 13 the baby looked just like Chewbacca from “Star Warsâ€. Must have been "Matilda."
WSA Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 It is just one report. Standing alone, it is nothing. It doesn't stand alone, as we all know. The Commonwealth has a long and detailed history. It is also where my two, "What the heck WAS that?" encounters took place. I find much more to ponder in the comments to that story than anything else, and it is fairly mirrors a lot of what we get around here on the Forum. Instead of, "Well, wouldn't it be great to know more about this?", we see the usual tired quips and stereotypes regarding witnesses. Of this, let me just say: Do you know anyone who takes the time and effort to fabricate a detailed story like this and then call up law enforcement to elaborate about it? Neither do I. As for anonymous? Nobody can make an anonymous call to a police dispatcher, at least in the sense the phone # is not anonymous and probably the actual identity of the caller isn't as well. 1
Old Dog Posted September 21, 2015 Author Posted September 21, 2015 It is just one report. Standing alone, it is nothing. It doesn't stand alone, as we all know. The Commonwealth has a long and detailed history. It is also where my two, "What the heck WAS that?" encounters took place. I find much more to ponder in the comments to that story than anything else, and it is fairly mirrors a lot of what we get around here on the Forum. Instead of, "Well, wouldn't it be great to know more about this?", we see the usual tired quips and stereotypes regarding witnesses. Of this, let me just say: Do you know anyone who takes the time and effort to fabricate a detailed story like this and then call up law enforcement to elaborate about it? Neither do I. As for anonymous? Nobody can make an anonymous call to a police dispatcher, at least in the sense the phone # is not anonymous and probably the actual identity of the caller isn't as well. Sure, it would be great to know more about this, however, when a person remains anonymous this is all you'll ever have. Sure the police know who the caller is, but they are legally bound to not release her name. Also, would this be the first time someone took the time to fabricate such a detailed account if it didn't happen? Some say the PGF is a fabrication. If so, that's pretty time consuming and detailed. This report has too many open questions that will never get answered. I want it to be a true report, I just have my doubts. Would you prefer we take everything at face value and ask no questions or demand no proof? Neither would I. 1
WSA Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 My comments were just general observations Old Dog, not directed towards anyone, and I was remiss in not extending thanks for you posting this.But...It is a prime example, in a nutshell, of why we continue to spin wheels in this field. And no, we certainly don't take everything at face value. Neither do we assume a report is pure fabrication when it doesn't exactly come out of the blue and out of a vacuum. I wish that all reports were detailed, comprehensive and fully attributed to the witness by name, as do you. You takes whats you gets though. And do we wonder at all, given the derogatory nature of the comments to the news report, why a witness would not be eager to attach their name to such an account? (No, we do not) Are we grateful that a person submits an anonymous report, at least? (Yes we are) Must we do additional research and apply experience to reports like these. (Yes, we must) Are we able to just toss this aside and say it has no value? Not if we are smart. The investment required to keep an open mind is miniscule. The price to pay for not is enormous.
JKH Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Interesting report. Agree with WSA, it looks likely on the map. Foothills, river, lots of patchy woods, not super populated. Is this a place of many large spreads, you know, hobby farms, etc.? It looks like people are fond of cutting down trees there. Edited September 21, 2015 by JKH
WSA Posted September 21, 2015 Posted September 21, 2015 Bedford County is about 800 sq. miles, give or take, roughly 40% is in agriculture. Beef and dairy cattle predominate. Timber production is also huge. It has some areas of concentrated population, Lynchburg for example, but lots of it is mountain/piedmont terrain. The reference to the Peaks of Otter in the witnesses' report is to one of the higher peaks in the S. Appalachians. Lots of N. Forest land too. The agricultural base is not of the extent you'd find over on the other side of the James River in the Valley to the north, but yeah, lots of wood and edge habitat and the population increases in the last 30 years have chopped up the terrain pretty well so you are not likely to find large single-crop intensive farm operations. Let me just opine, if BF lives anywhere, it could certainly be in Bedford County, VA. Not a stretch in the least, if existence is assumed.
Old Dog Posted September 22, 2015 Author Posted September 22, 2015 My comments were just general observations Old Dog, not directed towards anyone, and I was remiss in not extending thanks for you posting this. But... It is a prime example, in a nutshell, of why we continue to spin wheels in this field. And no, we certainly don't take everything at face value. Neither do we assume a report is pure fabrication when it doesn't exactly come out of the blue and out of a vacuum. I wish that all reports were detailed, comprehensive and fully attributed to the witness by name, as do you. You takes whats you gets though. And do we wonder at all, given the derogatory nature of the comments to the news report, why a witness would not be eager to attach their name to such an account? (No, we do not) Are we grateful that a person submits an anonymous report, at least? (Yes we are) Must we do additional research and apply experience to reports like these. (Yes, we must) Are we able to just toss this aside and say it has no value? Not if we are smart. The investment required to keep an open mind is miniscule. The price to pay for not is enormous. I agree with you for the most part. Please note that I do not use the term "discount" when referring to reports as a wholesale rejection of the account. I merely use it to refer to an account that I don't hold in as high a level as one with info about who is making the report and what their background is, plus the needed physical proof of their encounter. Had the police found prints to go along with her report, that would have been additional verification that something actually happened.
WSA Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 Oh, granted. There are degrees of usefulness in the reports. The more reports I read though, it seems (absent some glaring inconsistency) the body of evidence is greater than the sum of its individual parts. It is interesting how this perception grows. At work also, probably, is the likelihood your average investigator for the BFRO has made his determination on the question of existence long ago. It might be as simple a calculation as, "Do I drive three hours to take another picture of another BF print nobody will pay attention to, or do I try to make my daughter's soccer game?" As I've always said too, if the body of bigfoot sighting reports is a group delusion, fabrication or hallucination, THAT fact is of far, far greater scientific significance than a not-so-extraordinary primate for which there is ample biological precedence. Precedent for a massive phenomenon like alleged illusory witness incidents, across time, and international, gender, cultural and socio-economic boundaries? Not really any at all on this scale in recorded history. (Sorry, don't even make a pass at me you skeptics with unicorns, fairies, leprechaun's, dragons, the South Seas Bubble or any other lame comparison. That is like comparing lightning to a lightning bug.) Either the human race has suddenly and improbably developed that latent skill (Make no mistake about it. It would be a considerable skill) or the witnesses are seeing something real. That is an easy bet to make.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 (edited) Bedford County is about 800 sq. miles, give or take, roughly 40% is in agriculture. Beef and dairy cattle predominate. Timber production is also huge. It has some areas of concentrated population, Lynchburg for example, but lots of it is mountain/piedmont terrain. The reference to the Peaks of Otter in the witnesses' report is to one of the higher peaks in the S. Appalachians. Lots of N. Forest land too. The agricultural base is not of the extent you'd find over on the other side of the James River in the Valley to the north, but yeah, lots of wood and edge habitat and the population increases in the last 30 years have chopped up the terrain pretty well so you are not likely to find large single-crop intensive farm operations. Let me just opine, if BF lives anywhere, it could certainly be in Bedford County, VA. Not a stretch in the least, if existence is assumed. It also has quarries and mines. It might be because rocks and minerals are of interest to me, but I seem to have read a few BF sightings in or near quarries and mines. editing to add.... per the linked article, the witness was on Rt 43 heading towards Peaks of Otter and saw something around Turkey Mountain Rd (Rt 677). According to the mindat website http://www.mindat.org/loc-24301.html, Rt 43 goes past 5 mines in that area (Arrington, Peaksville, Dewey Toms, Overacre, and Coles) Edited September 22, 2015 by ChasingRabbits
WSA Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 Isn't that weird? Congruency happens. And you have to wonder why? Have you any hypothesis? Food or shelter? Collecting spent shell casings? :-) (Not to get too carried away with that though. BF presence has a high correlation for paved roadways, telephone poles and cattle pasture too, you know what I'm saying?)
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted September 22, 2015 Posted September 22, 2015 Isn't that weird? Congruency happens. And you have to wonder why? Have you any hypothesis? Food or shelter? Collecting spent shell casings? :-) (Not to get too carried away with that though. BF presence has a high correlation for paved roadways, telephone poles and cattle pasture too, you know what I'm saying?) The only thing I can think of is that areas that are mineral dense would have plants and water that are similarly mineral dense because the native soil is composed of itty bitty particles of those minerals. So there might be a nutritive value.
Recommended Posts