MagniAesir Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Lets reduce the wiggle room... Lets amend the scenario to where the survivor states her husband was killed by a BF, not a monster. Denialist and skeptics wanting evidence feel free to squirm... Squirm about what? We have cases on file where someone claims they were possessed, that they are vampires and a lot of other excuses. If a LEO is doing their job, they will go in the direction that the evidence takes them. Nothing more, nothing less. Your make believe scenarios do nothing to make a skeptic squirm. If sasquatch exists then sooner or later, that fact will be proven. If sasquatch does not exist, then make believe scenarios are only useful in passing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I knew this was to die a very horrible death from the very second I read it... And I was right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I knew this was to die a very horrible death from the very second I read it... And I was right... Something a skeptic and believer can agree on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 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? There you go again...putting words into other's mouths, making unfounded accusations and using extreme and inflammatory language....ie;..'lie...bald statement'.... This is not the way to 'debate' or to encourage other's to participate in debate with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted June 14, 2011 Share 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. The two I was involved in were handled just like any other "AGP" (Assist General Public) file. There are a lot of weird things reported to the police that require investigation. Why do you think that this particular phenomenon would cause a person to break their solemn oath to serve and protect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 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. I bolded and underlined the part I would to see links or references to at least two examples where a factual investigation and a public report backs up your claim. If you cannot offer that - please withdraw your inflammatory and demeaning comment that calls into question my integrity as a former LEO and those who still serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 There you go again...putting words into other's mouths, making unfounded accusations and using extreme and inflammatory language....ie;..'lie...bald statement'.... This is not the way to 'debate' or to encourage other's to participate in debate with you. That is the operative question of the OP: what would YOU, as the LEO, do with this body of evidence? Given that the body of evidence submitted in the hypothetical clearly indicates BF, would YOU as the LEO have the courage and integrity to state that, or would you lie in whole or in part to report some other cause? You said this: It's a bear.....that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. No, not a Bigfoot. I was asking you what evidence you had to support that conclusion in the hypothetical case as it flew if the face of all the available evidence or if that were what you would report ultimately regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I bolded and underlined the part I would to see links or references to at least two examples where a factual investigation and a public report backs up your claim. If you cannot offer that - please withdraw your inflammatory and demeaning comment that calls into question my integrity as a former LEO and those who still serve. No sale, rock...I KNOW personally at least one LEO, a current one, who almost got fired from a security job for being associated with a BF report on HIS OWN TIME. The company did not want any employee of theirs to have any linkage to the subject. We also have DZ's statement here: I imagine what my Commanding Officer in the Army would have said to me if I reported to him that a BF crossed the street in front of me. I do remember what my peers said and how I quickly let the story die! We've had several other serving personnel who said similar things in recent threads about their experiences relating to being told to "shut up about it". We also have the Mt St Helen's Pilot incident, and the Wildfire burned BF incident. Both on the public record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) No sale, rock...I KNOW personally at least one LEO, a current one, who almost got fired from a security job for being associated with a BF report on HIS OWN TIME. The company did not want any employee of theirs to have any linkage to the subject. We also have DZ's statement here: We've had several other serving personnel who said similar things in recent threads about their experiences relating to being told to "shut up about it". We also have the Mt St Helen's Pilot incident, and the Wildfire burned BF incident. Both on the public record. Nice dance. Your examples have nothing to do with what I asked for based on your outrageous statement. I consider the matter another case where you have made an outrageous statement without any FACTS to back it up. Please apologize to the Law Enforcement people whose integrity and honor you have maligned. Edited June 14, 2011 by rockinkt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 OK, just got the bright idea of asking the police officer stationed at our job for security about the issue. I asked would an officer include terms such as bigfoot, aliens, ufo, etc., in their report. His response was since it's a "witness" report, the officer would put whatever the witness says. Of course the issue then becomes that it's very easy for a officer to include such weirdness in a report because it's merely observation and reporting. The test would come where the officer has to make a judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Share 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. This is what I've been searching for....unsuccessfully so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 (edited) I would immediately call out a fugitive acquisition team, with bloodhounds, we would track the... Oh, wait dogs are afraid of Bigfoot... OK, then I would call an expert tracker to follow the footprints... Oh, wait the tracks never lead to a Bigfoot... OK then I would start the biggest manhunt in history to track down the fellow that did this... What? Bigfoot is too elusive to track in that manner? Well then I guess it's a bear. Seriously I would treat it as a murder investigation. My first suspect would be the wife/girlfriend Edited June 14, 2011 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 OK, just got the bright idea of asking the police officer stationed at our job for security about the issue. I asked would an officer include terms such as bigfoot, aliens, ufo, etc., in their report. His response was since it's a "witness" report, the officer would put whatever the witness says.Of course the issue then becomes that it's very easy for a officer to include such weirdness in a report because it's merely observation and reporting. The test would come where the officer has to make a judgement. Lets take the investigation a little further down the road, Lets assume the guy as he was being dismembered, managed to clutch onto a hand full of hair from the animal and the hairs were retrieved. Human DNA is found in the hairs. Do they have an open case of murder they can't solve? From what I can gather, if there is one thing an LEO agencey despises it's open and cold cases that lead nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I find this report rather interesting: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/inyo_county.htm (Bigfoot allegedly kills campers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Wait...is this true? The Army Corps of Engineers recognizes BF http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=39 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts