Guest John Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Here's a snippet from a made up story about 'bears', Alaska and bigfoot. Obviously there is no body in this scenario and it's clearly fabricated to get a reaction, but I couldn't help thinking there was at least a similarity. I'm not a police officer but I suppose even given this tale it would still get filed 'as is' even though it's obviously bogus and there is nothing to follow up on. i live in southeast alaska and have heard a lot of stories about it here, never saw it, had some time off recently and went with this old trapper who said he knew where to go but was afraid, so we went for 4 days on horseback then he gave me directions, i went for 3 more days and started hearing lots of wierd things, saw lots of broken trees, heard alot of yowls, assumed it was a bear until i saw a huge thing walking on 2 legs 100 yards or so from me when i was filling uip my water container, it left and walked away on 2 legs and i followed its tracks, it went to a shelter where there was another, im telling you it wasnt a bear, i know bears and this is no bear unless its a mutant, EDIT - I deleted the link as it's from the old BFF files - for some reason it links to a totally different thread that is live here. Edited June 16, 2011 by John
Guest Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Lets pause here for a moment----Would you then assume that the woman actually means a bear attacked her husband and killed him? Would you be arrogant enough to believe that this woman doesn't know what a "bear" looks like? I would "assume" that, given that you've already described her as in near shock, that she meant a bear and either mistook that it "walked" or that it actually did walk a short distance before hunkering down for the actual attack. Neither assumption is "arrogant", given the fact that we know bears exist and we do not know Bigfoot exist. So you and your officers half inform and half suggest that it was a "bear" and not a monster. The woman looks at you and says it wasn't a bear, it looked more like a giant gorilla. Do you still use arrogance and insist the woman must be mistaken? Yes, we still report it as a bear or cougar, because we know these exist, while we do not know Bigfoot exist. This is logic, not arrogance. People are mistaken - some are even in near shock, like out hypothetical Gertrude Hildigaurd in this story. We may however mention that the woman described it as a gorilla-like. But this would be just for the accuracy of the report and proper documentation - not for actually validating the description. I would resent the implication that handling it any other way indicated "arrogance" if this scenario wasn't written in such a condescending way in the first place. You now look at the body, and indeed the guy was torn to pieces. Arms ripped off and tossed, legs broken, head removed from trunk. Would you keep it to yourself that there aren't any claw marks? There isn't the typical sign of bear attacks which are bites to the face and head. Instead the head is ripped off. You look at the wounds and see the body wasn't cut or bitten...but the damage suggests the limbs were actually RIPPED off. Man hit by a car or tied to two cars and torn apart - murder. The woman is covering, lying. We know people do these things. We do not know Bigfoot are real. What would your report look like? Would it say what the young woman said, that the perp was a monster? Or would you say the attack was the work of a bear....though your experience says otherwise? Will you force yourself to not see the large human looking footprints, maybe even scratch them out? I would note the "footprints" in my report, but assume that they were planted there to help set-up the cover story. Also, assuming it was a murder or fatal car accident, (what else could it be? A Bigfoot?) I would turn it over the state boys and let them draw their conclusions. I ask...how would you handle this situation, keeping in mind you have a career you're attempting to retire from and you have superiors you have to give your report to. In closing: Will your report state that the victim was killed by a BF/monster or a bear? Report: Possible wild animal attack. Possible fatal car accident with suspicious circumstances. Edited June 16, 2011 by WTB1
wolftrax Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Skeptics not only refuse to assimilate into our culture, they drink too much, you can't leave anything out around them without it disappearing, and they are taking over our race by stealing our women!
Guest Roberty-Bob Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Skeptics not only refuse to assimilate into our culture, they drink too much, you can't leave anything out around them without it disappearing, and they are taking over our race by stealing our women! Hey! I don't drink too much!
Guest Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Skeptics not only refuse to assimilate into our culture, they drink too much, you can't leave anything out around them without it disappearing, and they are taking over our race by stealing our women! They do tend to suck the air out of a room. Edited June 17, 2011 by Gigantofootecus
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) You paraphrase incorrectly then...the question is not about whether or not the officer is a skeptic or skeptical, but about whether or not he would stick to his guns in the face of pressure from above/outside to be less than forthcoming, a theme Zu has touched on in many other posts. Dissembling again, Mulder? I remind you of the thread's cover title: QUESTION FOR ALL SKEPTICS/NON-BELIEVERS TO ANSWER - WILL BE INTERESTING IF FOLKS TELL THE TRUTH. After this "calling all skeptics" shout out, Zu tells US (we skeptics) to imagine WE (us skeptics) are investigating a lurid B movie scenario (his hypothetical). (Notice too his title leaves open the notion that blue meanie skeptics just might NOT tell the truth, the dastards). So, how did you figger his "question is not about whether or not the officer is a skeptic"? Edited June 17, 2011 by jerrywayne
wolftrax Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 They do tend to suck the air out of a room. Right? Why can't they leave us alone so we can share our beliefs about sasquatch being paranormal, or a human, or the Marx photos being real, or having shifting anatomy and morphology? Why can't all of us just think exactly the same?! 1
bipedalist Posted June 17, 2011 BFF Patron Posted June 17, 2011 Because the box is a vacuum all of the air has been sucked out of it?
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Dissembling again, Mulder? I remind you of the thread's cover title: QUESTION FOR ALL SKEPTICS/NON-BELIEVERS TO ANSWER - WILL BE INTERESTING IF FOLKS TELL THE TRUTH. After this "calling all skeptics" shout out, Zu tells US (we skeptics) to imagine WE (us skeptics) are investigating a lurid B movie scenario (his hypothetical). (Notice too his title leaves open the notion that blue meanie skeptics just might NOT tell the truth, the dastards). Because gov't officials NEVER lie or withold information... So, how did you figger his "question is not about whether or not the officer is a skeptic"? Because I, unlike some, assume that people are being truthful unless and until there is evidence otherwise.
wolftrax Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Because the box is a vacuum all of the air has been sucked out of it? We can't all think exactly the same because the box is a vacuum and all of the air has been sucked out of it? But I thought skeptics sucked all the air out of it.... so in effect skeptics are the reason we can't all think exactly the same? Who would have thought?
Guest Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Well honestly, it helps to have multiple points of view. Every study or project I've ever participated in turned out badly when we were all of like minds. If you take two extremes you can usually find the truth somewhere in the middle.
kitakaze Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Skeptics not only refuse to assimilate into our culture, they drink too much, you can't leave anything out around them without it disappearing, and they are taking over our race by stealing our women!
Guest rockinkt Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Skeptics not only refuse to assimilate into our culture, they drink too much, you can't leave anything out around them without it disappearing, and they are taking over our race by stealing our women! That's why we're too busy to get out in the field...
Guest RayG Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Only speaking for myself mind you, but I was too busy having kids. Oodles and oodles of kids. I'm exhausted from having so many kids. How can you go in the woods when you can't get out of bed? RayG
bipedalist Posted June 17, 2011 BFF Patron Posted June 17, 2011 I could see the investigating officer telling the lady witness that he couldn't put BF or monster down in the report. He would advise her that it was either another human that killed her husband or it was a wildlife attack. Since bigfoot are not proven he would have to put something else in the report despite what she believed. "Unknown wildlife attack" would probably be the cause of death on the certificate and the lady would probably be advised to leave it at that, unless ofcoarse there were perfect huge tracks there. The investigation might then turn towards her as a perpetrator of muder and hoax. It could turn very messy for her, though I think Logic would rule her out as potentially being able to rip her husband limb from limb. What SY said, medical examiner or coroner will determine cause of death. Oh, and photograph/cast the heck out of those "human'looking" footprints, lol. 1
Recommended Posts