Guest Lesmore Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 It's a bear.....that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. No, not a Bigfoot.
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 How would you begin this "case"? Start to finish? Having an example of some SOP procedures would be helpful. IMO a lot of rural depts don't have easy access to the types of forensics seen on CSI so what lab tests would you pick as essential & budget minded? Will also respectfully disagree with the premise regarding Bear or "monster" There are too many other possibilities possible in this senario. Given the evidence as stated for his scenario (NO bite marks, NO claw marks, huge HUMANIOD tracks not bear tracks, the victim TORN apart, not cut apart, and an adamant eyewitness that "it looked like a gorilla"), how could you come to any other conclusion BUT some sort of "monster"? The evidence excludes both humans (no human can tear another limb from limb w/o mechanical assistance), and known animals (lack of claw/bite marks). In this scenario, I would 1) close the area to public use 2) warn all surrounding areas that an unknown but highly dangerous animal is in the vicinity and 3) organize resources to track and kill the thing. At least that is what I would do if I were doing my DUTY as an LEO, as opposed to pulling an Amity and sweeping it under the rug as so many jurisdictions seem to indicate.
Guest Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 What the woman did not initially say is that a large, hairy, bigfoot walked out of the woods and tore her husband limb from limb. Your hypothetical occurs in the woods of Alaska where the recognized apex predator would be some kind of a brown bear. As you also point out, the woman is shaken and almost in shock. Initially assuming that the woman meant "bear" is not arrogant, but rather logical, and does not imply that she does not know what a bear looks like. The statement was made in the hypothetical that "it looked like a gorilla". Your hypothetical is way too prejudiced against skeptics and non-believers to be taken seriously, imo. Why is it "prejudiced"? Because all the physical evidence (condition of body, tracks, etc) point AWAY from "bear" and towards BF?
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 It's a bear.....that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. No, not a Bigfoot. On what factual basis do you make that claim? According to the scenario, all the physical evidence serves to EXCLUDE bear, and INCLUDE BF. Or are you saying you would lie and make the bald statement that it was bear, not BF no matter what the evidence showed?
Guest rockinkt Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 I think in the real world the LEO would play by the book. The report would just be left in the "open investigation" file so the agencies wouldn't be able to comment on it. There are many examples of that. Perhaps you can tell me how that could occur? More than one agency would have to be involved in the scenario. There also is a survivor in the scenario that would want answers and many, many lawyers willing to help her. Law enforcement is NOT what you see on TV or in the movies.
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Your hypothetical is way too prejudiced against skeptics and non-believers to be taken seriously, imo. Amen! (BTW, on Oprah's show once, she interviewed an animal control officer who shared his funny stories. He told of one woman who phoned in a "monster" report, saying it was in her house! The officer came to the location to find a very frightened women still maintaining a "monster" was in her house. She couldn't explain what kind of "monster', she was so panic stricken. The officer showed the video on Oprah of his removal of the "monster" from the woman's house: it was a possum!)
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Why is it "prejudiced"? Because all the physical evidence (condition of body, tracks, etc) point AWAY from "bear" and towards BF? It is a hypothetical that is designed to make skeptics appear to deny evidence and even suppress evidence. Any reasonable reply would then have the boundaries changed (suppose she actually said she saw a BF, not just a gorilla, for instance) in order to get to where the poster wants to go: skeptics deny evidence and even suppress evidence.
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Delta Zu; In the hypothertical situation that's outlined, to continue to tighten up the original scenerio to "force" the outcome of it has to be a BF/Monster is pointless. It chokes off dialogue. Obviously you want the outcome to be BF. Everyone "got that". However that is only one small portion of the OP. For example just because a witness can tell you in her opinion it wasn't a bear, how many other critters isn't she familiar with? Large footprints show nothing definative initially as bear prints can & have been misidentified as BF. Humans have been misidentified as BF's before. In Alaska it is not out of the realm of possibility for a sealskin/fur trimmed aboriginal outfit to be close (annorak & boots) to be potentially misindentified. Take into consideration the varieties of them and it's more than possible. Ultimately you asked for unput into your inquiry. Not liking the answers is no reason to continue to change the question midstream. Please stick with the original post or this thread will be closed. Thank You, Grayjay My apologies for appearing to move the goal posts, that wasn't my intention, there were different goals for each scenario. The outcome I'm looking for actually isn't BF or it really doesn't matter. I do not agree that large prints show nothing. Any amateur tracker or hunter or other expert should be able to tell if a animal is walking on two or four legs. Any bear unless it is housebroken and gets pedicures would also leave claw prints. Again, I actually loved the answers (there were deflections and stoic faces as I expected) and will not attempt to change the goal.
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 It is a hypothetical that is designed to make skeptics appear to deny evidence and even suppress evidence. Any reasonable reply would then have the boundaries changed (suppose she actually said she saw a BF, not just a gorilla, for instance) in order to get to where the poster wants to go: skeptics deny evidence and even suppress evidence. Laying aside the question of denialism on the evidence (of which there is abundant proof of right here in this forum), the question is straightforward: would you, the gov't official/LEO/whatever accurately report on what all the evidence available would indicate was a BF attack resulting in a fatality, or would you lie about it and call it something else, or would you try to straddle the fence and report as much as possible w/o calling it a BF attack? Given what we know of how gov't/LEO/military agencies operate on the subject, it's a valid question.
Guest rockinkt Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 <snip> I do not agree that large prints show nothing. Any amateur tracker or hunter or other expert should be able to tell if a animal is walking on two or four legs. Any bear unless it is housebroken and gets pedicures would also leave claw prints. <snip> Black bear tracks do not always have claw marks.
Doc Holliday Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Ahhhh the sound of logic and reason to sooth the soul! Slick comes thru again! glad you liked it, thank you C. however, it looks like the show is starting again
bipedalist Posted June 14, 2011 BFF Patron Posted June 14, 2011 Black bear tracks do not always have claw marks. Amen bro.
Guest BitterMonk Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Black bear tracks do not always have claw marks. One of the most often repeated untruths in this field has to be the "bears always leave claw marks" line.
Guest LAL Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 I can think of four sightings/track events off the top of my head that were investigated by local law enforcement. I wonder how they handled their reports in real life.
Recommended Posts