masterbarber Posted October 27, 2010 Admin Posted October 27, 2010 So because the clip doesn't have the WHOLE transmission, then none of the transmission is real? If it doesn't contain the whole transmission then you have no corroboration that it was related to the incident he claims. That may be fine for you, but it doesn't cut it for me.
Guest Lesmore Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 (edited) I think eyewitness testimony when it comes to viewing something ...say BF....in a forested area can be unreliable. It's not a reflection on a person's veracity...it can be a case of trying to exactly describe what one has seen in varying generally, poor lighting conditions...dusk, dawn, shadows, reflections, obscured views, distance, etc. The quality of light is certainly at all not similar to a photographer's studio, with photographic lighting revealing every aspect of the subject who maybe just a few feet away. I just use this as an example of perfect lighting compared to more often than not, imperfect conditions you will get out in the wild. There are other factors...the excitement ...the tension ...possibly the fear... of seeing something you haven't seen before. Edited October 27, 2010 by Lesmore
Guest vilnoori Posted October 27, 2010 Posted October 27, 2010 That recording was made by a tribal officer. The officer did not see anything. The officer when interviewed on camera said "he heard a sound" as he was driving down a road. He never stated he that he was "paced". Basically the dude recorded a sound. You are misquoting the LEO witness. Watch this starting at 7:15, and then the second one at the begining. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txgRlqsg3oI The officer did not state at anytime that an animal paced him, or that he even saw the source of the sound. What wonderful stuff you've found there. I shall have to do some looking through those old youtube films.
Guest Kerchak Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 What wonderful stuff you've found there. I shall have to do some looking through those old youtube films. Actually it was ME who first posted those Arthur C Clarke clips here..
Guest Kerchak Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) That recording was made by a tribal officer. The officer did not see anything. The officer when interviewed on camera said "he heard a sound" as he was driving down a road. He never stated he that he was "paced". Basically the dude recorded a sound. You are misquoting the LEO witness. Watch this starting at 7:15, and then the second one at the begining. The officer did not state at anytime that an animal paced him, or that he even saw the source of the sound. Officer Ken Cooper might not have said he had seen anything in that interview but if you watch the same clip at around 4 minutes 30 seconds in and you will see that Yakima Police Sgt Larry Gamache (and his sister in law) most certainly did alledge to actually witness a bigfoot during a seperate sighting. I would call Sgt Larry Gamache a 'credible' witness. His description of the encounter is very matter of fact. Edited October 28, 2010 by Kerchak
Guest River Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 Officer Ken Cooper might not have said he had seen anything in that interview but if you watch the same clip at around 4 minutes 30 seconds in and you will see that Yakima Police Sgt Larry Gamache (and his sister in law) most certainly did alledge to actually witness a bigfoot during a seperate sighting. I would call Sgt Larry Gamache a 'credible' witness. His description of the encounter is very matter of fact. Did he make an official police report about that? I think in that interview he stated he was in a pickup truck. (off duty?) If he didnt make an official report, why not? Isnt that pretty much the same as anyone else who "saw one cross the road"?
masterbarber Posted October 28, 2010 Admin Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) I saw that and I agree that reports of this nature are head scratchers. You have a reported sighting of a "BF" by a Sheriff's Deputy (supervisor) with a corroborating witness. There's a Seattle Times article on the BFRO recounting an incident that Gamache responded to on-duty involving three young bear hunters: Wednesday, October 01, 1975 Sasquatch Sighted Seattle Times Yakima (AP) - It probably wasn't the first time boys have become frightened while camping out in the woods. But three Tacoma youths were so sure they saw the legendary Sasquatch, they abandoned their tent and almost wrecked their jeep in executing their hasty departure, according to Yakima County Sheriff's deputy Larry Gamache. According to Gamache's report, the three youths, Tom V. Gerstmar, 17, Earl Thomas, 18, and Jerry Lazzar, 16, were camped at Section Three Lake on Pinegrass Ridge Wednesday. The three were heading back to their camp after bear hunting all day. As they walked they heard noises and had the feeling they were being followed, the report said. They built a fire at their camp and more noises were heard. The report said Gerstmar directed his flashlight across a small pond and spotted two greenish-yellow eyes. Later they again spotted the eyes with their flashlights, only this time found them housed in a human-like furry body eight or nine feet tall, the report said. At that point the youths decided to fire their rifles to frighten the creature. They said the creature moved off a little after seven shots were fired. When their flashlights again found it, it growled and screamed, the report said. And the three decided they would leave their tent and belongings behind and take a ride toward civilization. Gamache, another deputy and Washington Game Department Agent Larry Konen, returned to the camp Thursday and began searching for what the boys said they saw. (edited for content) Edited October 28, 2010 by masterbarber
masterbarber Posted October 28, 2010 Admin Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) Did he make an official police report about that? I think in that interview he stated he was in a pickup truck. (off duty?) If he didnt make an official report, why not? Isnt that pretty much the same as anyone else who "saw one cross the road"? The fact that he was interviewed in uniform and representing the YCSO makes it different than the average joe. The Sheriff would have had to have given approval for this to occur which tells me alot. Had it been unauthorized, it would have most likely been a career ender for the good Sgt. ETA: In today's (US) Law Enforcement environment, that type of interview would most likely never occur. Edited October 28, 2010 by masterbarber
BobbyO Posted October 28, 2010 SSR Team Posted October 28, 2010 ETA: In today's (US) Law Enforcement environment, that type of interview would most likely never occur. Why not don't you think MB ??
masterbarber Posted October 28, 2010 Admin Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) Bob, Due to the "climate" with increasing attempts by Defense Attorneys to discredit LEO testimony (in court) by way of attempting to impeach the LEO him/herself through any means they can. You can see how an "Officer appearing on camera claiming a BF sighting" would play out. I don't think there's an Agency today that would risk the potential problems this can cause. ETA: I've sent an email to Sgt. Gamache (retired) inviting him to the forum and to take part in a discussion regarding his experiences with Bigfoot. I'll post any updates/replies here. Edited October 28, 2010 by masterbarber
Guest Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 ^I've got to concur with MB on the "won't interview" question. it's the same with active duty Forest Service personnel, etc. They just won't talk about it in any official capacity, and probably not UNofficially either. I know someone who was working uniformed security (which has the same reputation considerations as LE) when he reported some incidents to a certain org that happened to him OFF duty. The investigator assigned to the case by the org was trying to get hold of him and tracked him down through his work. He almost got fired, and DID get reamed out by his supervisor for potentially damaging his professional security reputation.
Guest vilnoori Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 Actually it was ME who first posted those Arthur C Clarke clips here.. Well thanks! I like!
Guest River Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 The fact that he was interviewed in uniform and representing the YCSO makes it different than the average joe. The Sheriff would have had to have given approval for this to occur which tells me alot. Had it been unauthorized, it would have most likely been a career ender for the good Sgt. ETA: In today's (US) Law Enforcement environment, that type of interview would most likely never occur. I dont think he was "on duty" during that interview. It is interesting that they chose to interview him in the patrol car with his uniform. I believe it was done to give his story more credence than the "average joe". If the police officer was off duty at the time of the incident, and did not make any official report about the incident - it leaves me questioning why did they interview him in the car and uniform? I agree that the political and social enviroment is much different today. I dont think the Captain would be too happy these days if they did such an interview in the patrol car with his uniform on camera in such a context. (especially since the incident happened while the officer was off duty, and no official report filed) Why do you think it would've been a career ender?
Guest River Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 Actually it was ME who first posted those Arthur C Clarke clips here.. I actually ended up watching quite a few of those after I watched the related ones! Cool stuff.
masterbarber Posted October 28, 2010 Admin Posted October 28, 2010 He was in YCSO uniform representing the YCSO. I didn't make a determination on his duty status, although technically an LEO is on duty 24/7/365. There is no question that that interview would have to be approved by the Sheriff. The Sergeant was using County equipment that belongs to the Sheriff's dept. If he took it upon himself to do this without clearance, he'd most likely no longer have been working there. While I don't know the specifics of that agency's protocol(SOP), I'm quite certain that their employees cannot make decisions about how they promote the Sheriff's office without his expressed permission. Why would he make an official incident report? It's not a crime to be a large, hairy , Biped crossing the road is it? It's an odd occurance and I suppose he could have done a misc. report, and he may have, but we don't know at this point. There may have been an internal investigation, in which case we wouldn't know about it.
Recommended Posts