Groundspeak Forums: Skirt lifter bomb scare in Midland, Texas - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Skirt lifter bomb scare in Midland, Texas

#1 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:25 PM

Gotta love the picture.

MyWestTexas.Com

#2 User is offline   Cardinal Red 

  • I am not a Lab Rat
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 17-July 04

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:38 PM

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jan 8 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Gotta love the picture.

MyWestTexas.Com

Ten minutes before your post: Bomb scare in my town today

I might have read that before starting a new thread.

#3 User is offline   Chrysalides 

  • Aluminum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7600
  • Joined: 19-October 08

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:44 PM

Comment left by reader on the page:

Quote

aesop007 wrote on Jan 8, 2010 5:43 PM:
...this sounds like a game for people who are really bored; tech savvy, but really bored.


#4 User is offline   bittsen 

  • Über Genius - vol.3.05
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4764
  • Joined: 03-August 08

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:52 PM

Looks like the terrorists win again!

#5 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 18887
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 08 January 2010 - 04:58 PM

Before the microwave, this would have gotten my full attention. :P

#6 User is offline   ess1113 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 25-February 08

  Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:02 PM

Just was talking to a friend about this. I was in Midland caching and wound up talking to a friend about how fun it is. She called me up about an hour ago with the geocache bomb square.

Who gets the FTF?
Does MPD EOP get to sign the log?

ESS1113

#7 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:06 PM

View PostCardinal Red, on Jan 8 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jan 8 2010, 07:25 PM, said:

Gotta love the picture.

MyWestTexas.Com

Ten minutes before your post: Bomb scare in my town today

I might have read that before starting a new thread.


Yeah, but you're not me, and it's a different forum. :P I do apologize for the oversight though.

#8 User is offline   Mom-n-Andy 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:08 PM

What the heck kind of writers and editors does this newspaper have?
A "suspicion" package?
A "larg-scale" hide and seek game?
A "suspicion" man?
And finally, after spelling geocache correctly once, there are two references to "geochache".

I usually let typos go, but come on! A newspaper really should do better than this!

#9 User is offline   GOF and Bacall 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6679
  • Joined: 24-September 06

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:15 PM

View PostMom-n-Andy, on Jan 8 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

What the heck kind of writers and editors does this newspaper have?
A "suspicion" package?
A "larg-scale" hide and seek game?
A "suspicion" man?
And finally, after spelling geocache correctly once, there are two references to "geochache".

I usually let typos go, but come on! A newspaper really should do better than this!


The editors and proof reader were still stuck in the store at deadline time.

#10 User is offline   skraeling 

  • OMG! Humans are visible from space! Oh noes!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:54 PM

With all these "scares", how long before geocaching is declared illegal and banned? My guess is not long.

#11 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:58 PM

View Postess1113, on Jan 8 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

Just was talking to a friend about this. I was in Midland caching and wound up talking to a friend about how fun it is. She called me up about an hour ago with the geocache bomb square.

Who gets the FTF?
Does MPD EOP get to sign the log?

ESS1113


You're a local then? I'm not seeing on the Geocaching.com Google map near 5300 W. Wadley Ave, I think it may be archived already. And I don't see it in the hides of the guy who owns all the nearby parking lot micros. I may have missed it though, since he has like 200 of them. :P

#12 User is offline   wimseyguy 

  • plays well with others.........food
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6480
  • Joined: 07-August 02

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:59 PM

Is he using that poor defenseless shopping cart to hold the lamp post skirt up?

#13 User is offline   WanderingWaypoint 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 28-December 06

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:02 PM

I am "local" and have a pocket query from earlier this week and the geocache is listed there, and looks to have been removed, today maybe? It was a pretty popular cache, and everyone mentioned in their logs how "muggles abound in the area."

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jan 8 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

View Postess1113, on Jan 8 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

Just was talking to a friend about this. I was in Midland caching and wound up talking to a friend about how fun it is. She called me up about an hour ago with the geocache bomb square.

Who gets the FTF?
Does MPD EOP get to sign the log?

ESS1113


You're a local then? I'm not seeing on the Geocaching.com Google map near 5300 W. Wadley Ave, I think it may be archived already. And I don't see it in the hides of the guy who owns all the nearby parking lot micros. I may have missed it though, since he has like 200 of them. :P


#14 User is offline   GeePa 

  • Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:27 PM

Man, I gotta get me one of these Bomb Squad robots for going after LPC caches. I would not even have to get out of the car!

Posted Image

#15 User is offline   WRITE SHOP ROBERT 

  • Prize Winning Profile
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5682
  • Joined: 11-August 03

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:51 PM

View PostMom-n-Andy, on Jan 8 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

What the heck kind of writers and editors does this newspaper have?
A "suspicion" package?
A "larg-scale" hide and seek game?
A "suspicion" man?
And finally, after spelling geocache correctly once, there are two references to "geochache".

I usually let typos go, but come on! A newspaper really should do better than this!

And calling it a "Bundle"??

#16 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 18887
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:52 PM

View Postskraeling, on Jan 8 2010, 07:54 PM, said:

With all these "scares", how long before geocaching is declared illegal and banned? My guess is not long.
You'd better get out there this weekend and get your numbers up, then! :P

#17 User is offline   WRITE SHOP ROBERT 

  • Prize Winning Profile
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5682
  • Joined: 11-August 03

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:54 PM

View Postwimseyguy, on Jan 8 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

Is he using that poor defenseless shopping cart to hold the lamp post skirt up?

No, It's several feet away, Maybe the store staff put them there to 'Rope off" the area? Looks like there are more than one standing on end.

#18 User is offline   Turtle_Sask 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 345
  • Joined: 11-January 09

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:03 PM

you think with all the bomb scares someone would want to rage against us. Hopefully not

#19 User is offline   GeePa 

  • Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:12 PM

View PostTurtle_Sask, on Jan 8 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

you think with all the bomb scares someone would want to rage against us. Hopefully not


Well, in this case is seems likely that the person who hid the cache did not have permission from the store (as is required in the guidelines). If they had, then I would doubt that the store would have called the cops.

Of course, there is still the problem of a muggle potentially calling from the parking lot using a cell phone...

#20 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 18887
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 08 January 2010 - 08:20 PM

View PostGeePa, on Jan 8 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

View PostTurtle_Sask, on Jan 8 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

you think with all the bomb scares someone would want to rage against us. Hopefully not

Well, in this case is seems likely that the person who hid the cache did not have permission from the store (as is required in the guidelines). If they had, then I would doubt that the store would have called the cops.
Of course, there is still the problem of a muggle potentially calling from the parking lot using a cell phone...
Or perhaps they got permission from the guy that pushes the carts back into the store. Or from the woman in the SUV that was parked nearby at the time. Or maybe from the former manager who was too flustered from being laid off to remember to pass that information on to his superiors.

#21 User is offline   edscott 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3180
  • Joined: 12-July 02

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:07 PM

View PostMom-n-Andy, on Jan 8 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

What the heck kind of writers and editors does this newspaper have?
A "suspicion" package?
A "larg-scale" hide and seek game?
A "suspicion" man?
And finally, after spelling geocache correctly once, there are two references to "geochache".

I usually let typos go, but come on! A newspaper really should do better than this!



c'mon it's Texas.... :P

#22 User is offline   NatureGuy360 

  • $30 a Year Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 162
  • Joined: 31-December 05

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:10 PM

Sorry if I sound like a prude, but this "bomb scare" thing is getting to be a regular occurrence. Sure, you are "supposed" to have permission, but lets not kid ourselves here. We all know that many of the geocaches hidden in business parking lots are placed WITHOUT permission. :P

I think it should be mandatory that each geocache listing should include the name of the person who gave permission for that geocache, and a method of contact for them. That way there is verification that permission has been granted, and hopefully these incidents could be reduced.

This post has been edited by heyjonathan101: 08 January 2010 - 09:14 PM


#23 User is offline   Team Dromomania 

  • Gotta keep on cachin'
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 353
  • Joined: 27-December 03

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:10 PM

[quote name='knowschad' date='Jan 8 2010, 08:20 PM' post='4184381']
[/quote] Or maybe from the former manager who was too flustered from being laid off to remember to pass that information on to his superiors.
[/quote]


I recall reading about a cache hidden inside a pizza shop with the owner's permission. It was an employee who phoned in the possible bomb scare. I guess it wasn't in the training manual.

#24 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8261
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:30 PM

View Postheyjonathan101, on Jan 8 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

Sorry if I sound like a prude, but this "bomb scare" thing is getting to be a regular occurrence. Sure, you are "supposed" to have permission, but lets not kid ourselves here. We all know that many of the geocaches hidden in business parking lots are placed WITHOUT permission. :P

I think it should be mandatory that each geocache listing should include the name of the person who gave permission for that geocache, and a method of contact for them. That way there is verification that permission has been granted, and hopefully these incidents could be reduced.


Yes, of course, this will solve the problem. But, the person that gave permission did not pass it on to the troops. as the troops turn over the information is not passed on to the new ones, the person giving the permission moves on and does not pass the information on, muggles unaware that permission was given see the "suspicious" activity and drop a dime without finding the person that gave the permission. In all cases the bell on 911 is rung. When the first responders show up all they think about is getting the area secure, they are not about to go have a chat with someone in the store to see if anyone gave permission to hide something under the skirt.

Of the many bomb scares reported here, a number had the permission given. Many were in clear containers where the contents could be seen, some were clearly marked, the result? they were rendered harmless, read bang.

Talking to the police, having permission, having clear containers, having clearly marked containers are not going to prevent the bomb squad from showing up. Someone reports a suspicious package dropped by a suspicious person and the first cop on the scene only thinks about securing the area, keeping everyone back and telling the Sargent "I don't know what this thing is, I didn't want to touch it because it might be a bomb". The Sargent, right after talking to the Lieutenant calls the bomb squad. The film will be on the 11 o'clock news. Heck, even ammo cans in the desert have been blown up by the bomb squad.

#25 User is offline   GOF and Bacall 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6679
  • Joined: 24-September 06

Posted 08 January 2010 - 09:36 PM

View Postjholly, on Jan 8 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

View Postheyjonathan101, on Jan 8 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

Sorry if I sound like a prude, but this "bomb scare" thing is getting to be a regular occurrence. Sure, you are "supposed" to have permission, but lets not kid ourselves here. We all know that many of the geocaches hidden in business parking lots are placed WITHOUT permission. :P

I think it should be mandatory that each geocache listing should include the name of the person who gave permission for that geocache, and a method of contact for them. That way there is verification that permission has been granted, and hopefully these incidents could be reduced.


Yes, of course, this will solve the problem. But, the person that gave permission did not pass it on to the troops. as the troops turn over the information is not passed on to the new ones, the person giving the permission moves on and does not pass the information on, muggles unaware that permission was given see the "suspicious" activity and drop a dime without finding the person that gave the permission. In all cases the bell on 911 is rung. When the first responders show up all they think about is getting the area secure, they are not about to go have a chat with someone in the store to see if anyone gave permission to hide something under the skirt.

Of the many bomb scares reported here, a number had the permission given. Many were in clear containers where the contents could be seen, some were clearly marked, the result? they were rendered harmless, read bang.

Talking to the police, having permission, having clear containers, having clearly marked containers are not going to prevent the bomb squad from showing up. Someone reports a suspicious package dropped by a suspicious person and the first cop on the scene only thinks about securing the area, keeping everyone back and telling the Sargent "I don't know what this thing is, I didn't want to touch it because it might be a bomb". The Sargent, right after talking to the Lieutenant calls the bomb squad. The film will be on the 11 o'clock news. Heck, even ammo cans in the desert have been blown up by the bomb squad.


Don't forget about the time they blew up the DMV traffic counter.

#26 User is offline   jholly 

  • I like the smell of a cache in the morning
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8261
  • Joined: 16-August 02

Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:07 PM

View PostGOF & Bacall, on Jan 8 2010, 09:36 PM, said:

Don't forget about the time they blew up the DMV traffic counter.


:D :P :lol:

#27 User is offline   oakenwood 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 17-June 08

Posted 08 January 2010 - 10:27 PM

They should send Staff Reports back to J-school; that reads like it was written by an intern who relies on their spell-checker too much. They didn't know how to spell "suspicious" so the checker corrected it to "suspicion". "Geocache" is apparently not in the checker's lexicon.

Notice that it was a LPC in a parking lot. LPC haters can add this to their list.

#28 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • A113
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6049
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 08 January 2010 - 11:45 PM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on Jan 1 2010, 08:12 AM, said:

The moral of the story is that parking lot micros are inherently dangerous as suspicious activity and that while seeking them you run the risk of being arrested! :P Perhaps we need a handcuff icon for urban hides. :D


This article is more detailed.
:
Stuck in a store for 2 hours because of a LPC.. :lol:

Quote

An employee at Academy Sports and Outdoors at the corner of Loop 250 and Wadley Avenue alerted police of the object around 1:45 p.m. after a customer told them a man had been acting suspiciously in the parking lot, said MPD Sgt. Ben Chavez.

The customer said the man had inspected several of the parking lot's blue light poles before hiding an object in one of the poles and then leaving the area.

"It looked like what they described as a pipe bomb," said MPD bomb squad commander Sgt. Brain Rackow.

Police, fire, EMS, FBI and ICE officials descended upon the scene just after 1:45 p.m., blocking of the shopping center parking lot and requiring employees and customers already inside the buildings to remain put while they investigated.

Explosive Ordinance Detonation Unit officials arrived shortly after and at around 3:30 p.m. inspected the object both with a protective suit and later through a police department robot. Once they handled the object, Rackow said, they quickly realized it was not a pipe bomb, but rather a small plastic tube wrapped in camouflage. The object also was x-rayed by the robot.

The man suspected in the incident was located on Holiday Hill road just before 4 p.m. and when stopped told police the tube was a geocache, or a container hidden as part of an online game, Rackow said.

No charges were pending against the man involved Friday afternoon, Rackow said. Theoretically, Rackow said, the store could press charges for trespassing or the city could sue for the cost of Friday's investigation, though that is not a typical course of action.

"There are lots of false alarms, but it only takes one time," Rackow said. "We'd rather err on the side of caution."

The more than 30 shoppers who'd been cooped up inside both Academy Sports and Outdoors and Mardel were allowed to leave around 4:10 p.m. Friday. Several quickly exited the parking lot letting out brief cheers while others joked with the officers they were glad their trucks were still in tact.

"I came in for one thing and $200 later ..." said Kris Crow, explaining how he spent the several hours inside the sporting goods store.

His wife Tisha Crow said she carried around a chair and sat at the end of the aisles as her husband browsed during the about three hours they ended up spending at the shop.

"I was in heaven, she was in hell," Kris Crow said, laughing.

Other shoppers said the scene inside both stores was relatively calm, though a few children became antsy as the afternoon wore on. Shoppers had been told there were reports of a pipe bomb, but that nothing had been confirmed.

Texas Burger, Security Bank and Kent Kwik also were closed for business during the investigation Friday afternoon.

Spokesperson for Academy Sports and Outdoors Elise Hasbrook said the chain has an emergency plan in place for incidents like this so as to protect the safety of everyone in the store.

"We take customer concerns seriously and certainly we take our employees' safety seriously," she said.

According to geocaching.com a geocache container was originally hidden at Academy Sports and Outdoors on Dec. 13.

The basic idea of the game, according to geocaching.com, is to hide the geocaches, or containers, outdoors and then share the experience online. Other game players equipped with GPS devices then use the online clues left to find the object. Once players find the trove, they sign a log, share the experience online and leave it there for others to find.

The geocache at Academy Sports and Outdoors had five online entries added about it since it was hidden, with the last occurring on Jan. 4.

There are currently about 545 geocaches hidden in the Midland area, according to the Web site, and 969,116 geocaches hidden around the world.

Rackow said they certainly don't mind people playing the game, but wish those hiding geocaches near stores or other public places would ask the business's permission first to avoid an incident like Friday's.

He said Midland police investigated a possible bomb at the UTPB CEED Center several months ago that also turned out to be a geocache. Such incidents, he said, are costly and tie up police department resources.

The Explosive Ordinance Detonation Unit, he said, investigate an average of two calls each month.



This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 08 January 2010 - 11:57 PM


#29 User is offline   MarliedogUK 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 03-January 10

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:33 AM

I'm very new to this game, but one of my finds so far was in a spot frequented by holiday muggles. Would it not be prudent for the geocache hiders to inform the local police department as well as getting permission from the owners of the location, of exact details and maybe even a photo of the cache itself for those highly frequented areas ?

Okay, granted this might be overkill, but especially in these highly security sensitive times we live in, but at least when they get a call about a suspicious package, they might only need a drive by to ensure all ok.

Maybe this has been done previously, but found to be negative towards the game, even having the cops demand removal ?

Discuss.

MarliedogUK

#30 User is offline   power69 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1916
  • Joined: 06-August 08

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:41 AM

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jan 8 2010, 05:25 PM, said:

Gotta love the picture.

MyWestTexas.Com

gotta be careful with those 35mm film cannisters filled with dangerous paper!

#31 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Nine time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38356
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:04 AM

View Postheyjonathan101, on Jan 9 2010, 12:10 AM, said:

Sorry if I sound like a prude, but this "bomb scare" thing is getting to be a regular occurrence. Sure, you are "supposed" to have permission, but lets not kid ourselves here. We all know that many of the geocaches hidden in business parking lots are placed WITHOUT permission. :P

I think it should be mandatory that each geocache listing should include the name of the person who gave permission for that geocache, and a method of contact for them. That way there is verification that permission has been granted, and hopefully these incidents could be reduced.
t

There have been several of these incidents where there was permission.

The best way to avoid this is to give some thought to where they are hidden. If you place a cache in a high traffic area searchers are going to be noticed. Some people who notice them will consider them suspicious, and some who consider them suspicious will report them.

#32 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 09 January 2010 - 05:11 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jan 9 2010, 04:04 AM, said:

View Postheyjonathan101, on Jan 9 2010, 12:10 AM, said:

Sorry if I sound like a prude, but this "bomb scare" thing is getting to be a regular occurrence. Sure, you are "supposed" to have permission, but lets not kid ourselves here. We all know that many of the geocaches hidden in business parking lots are placed WITHOUT permission. :P

I think it should be mandatory that each geocache listing should include the name of the person who gave permission for that geocache, and a method of contact for them. That way there is verification that permission has been granted, and hopefully these incidents could be reduced.
t

There have been several of these incidents where there was permission.

The best way to avoid this is to give some thought to where they are hidden. If you place a cache in a high traffic area searchers are going to be noticed. Some people who notice them will consider them suspicious, and some who consider them suspicious will report them.


As the OP, I figured this might come up. :lol: As much as I've been ranting for years that almost all parking lot micros are placed without permission and everyone knows it (and it's even the major reason that I personally ignore them all), I have to agree 100% with Snat here. Many caches with permission have been blown up. The major issue is not everyone knows about it. I'd have to search for it, but a Wally World Parking Lot micro that was placed with permission (shocking as that may seem) in Western Pa. was blown up last summer.

#33 User is offline   edscott 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3180
  • Joined: 12-July 02

Posted 09 January 2010 - 08:24 AM

Yes I'm sure the terrorists of the world are bent on the destruction of our society via the elimination of lampposts in Walmart parking lots. Forget the exploding underpants and guard the lampposts. The sky is falling......

#34 User is offline   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 11198
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 09 January 2010 - 09:39 AM

View PostGeePa, on Jan 8 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

View PostTurtle_Sask, on Jan 8 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

you think with all the bomb scares someone would want to rage against us. Hopefully not


Well, in this case is seems likely that the person who hid the cache did not have permission from the store (as is required in the guidelines). If they had, then I would doubt that the store would have called the cops.

Of course, there is still the problem of a muggle potentially calling from the parking lot using a cell phone...


Even if permission was obtained from "someone" to place the cache, expecting that everyone that works there, or, as you say, muggles with cell phones, will "get the memo" is pretty unlikely. The only real solution here is to stop placing geocaches in public parking lots.

#35 User is offline   nlinecylon 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:36 AM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jan 9 2010, 09:39 AM, said:


Even if permission was obtained from "someone" to place the cache, expecting that everyone that works there, or, as you say, muggles with cell phones, will "get the memo" is pretty unlikely. The only real solution here is to stop placing geocaches in public parking lots.


Maybe the reviewers need to stop approving such.

#36 User is offline   Bergie Bunch 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 01-July 08

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:55 AM

View PostMom-n-Andy, on Jan 8 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

What the heck kind of writers and editors does this newspaper have?
A "suspicion" package?
A "larg-scale" hide and seek game?
A "suspicion" man?
And finally, after spelling geocache correctly once, there are two references to "geochache".

I usually let typos go, but come on! A newspaper really should do better than this!

Sock puppet?

#37 User is offline   sTeamTraen 

  • Geocachers in Alsace, France
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4047
  • Joined: 15-February 04

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:04 AM

View Postheyjonathan101, on Jan 9 2010, 06:10 AM, said:

Sorry if I sound like a prude, but this "bomb scare" thing is getting to be a regular occurrence.

Yes, at this rate pretty soon there will only be 1,000 times more auto fatalities per year in the US than geocache bomb scares.

#38 User is offline   Bergie Bunch 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: 01-July 08

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:07 AM

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Jan 9 2010, 05:11 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on Jan 9 2010, 04:04 AM, said:

View Postheyjonathan101, on Jan 9 2010, 12:10 AM, said:

Sorry if I sound like a prude, but this "bomb scare" thing is getting to be a regular occurrence. Sure, you are "supposed" to have permission, but lets not kid ourselves here. We all know that many of the geocaches hidden in business parking lots are placed WITHOUT permission. :P

I think it should be mandatory that each geocache listing should include the name of the person who gave permission for that geocache, and a method of contact for them. That way there is verification that permission has been granted, and hopefully these incidents could be reduced.
t

There have been several of these incidents where there was permission.

The best way to avoid this is to give some thought to where they are hidden. If you place a cache in a high traffic area searchers are going to be noticed. Some people who notice them will consider them suspicious, and some who consider them suspicious will report them.


As the OP, I figured this might come up. :lol: As much as I've been ranting for years that almost all parking lot micros are placed without permission and everyone knows it (and it's even the major reason that I personally ignore them all), I have to agree 100% with Snat here. Many caches with permission have been blown up. The major issue is not everyone knows about it. I'd have to search for it, but a Wally World Parking Lot micro that was placed with permission (shocking as that may seem) in Western Pa. was blown up last summer.

WallyWorld TrvelBugHotel
This was our teams cache, placed with permission of the manager, who failed to inform other employees. We also had another cache at WallyWorld, MEadville TB hotel
placed with permission of one manager, but removed by another. Permission does not matter, muggles or employees will get you whenever they can.

This post has been edited by Bergie Bunch: 09 January 2010 - 11:09 AM


#39 User is offline   russ1985uk 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: 25-June 07

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:15 AM

Read my take on this incident at:

http://www.cache-machine.co.uk/2010/01/why...placing-caches/

Russ

#40 User is offline   7rxc 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2393
  • Joined: 06-August 08

Posted 09 January 2010 - 11:48 AM

As it relates to this topic in general...

I was impressed with the proactive stance taken by the British Columbia Geocaching Association.
In light of the large areas covered by the Winter Olympic Venues, they are 'encouraging' CO's to disable and remove temporarily anything bigger than a micro. As well as working with the Security People to protect visitors and cachers...
On the 'front' page.

British Columbia Geocaching Association

Doug

#41 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • A113
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6049
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:29 PM

It all comes down to perception of what a non-cacher thinks. If you are acting a bit odd, you might draw attention but with no harm done. If they actually see an object, then there is the problem. If they see you replace the object back, and along with suspicious activity, thats when the phone call goes out. You can try not to act suspicious in any way, but if they see an object left behind anyway then it could be considered reasonable cause. I thought it was ridiculous not too long ago for a micro to be thought dangerous in any way, but it seems to be now.

The question is, how much responsibility of a percieved dangerous object, should be left to cachers? There are plenty of things laying around, everywhere.

#42 User is offline   baloo&bd 

  • Caching Couple
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3255
  • Joined: 29-March 03

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:44 PM

View PostBergie Bunch, on Jan 9 2010, 01:07 PM, said:

WallyWorld TrvelBugHotel
This was our teams cache, placed with permission of the manager, who failed to inform other employees. We also had another cache at WallyWorld, MEadville TB hotel
placed with permission of one manager, but removed by another. Permission does not matter, muggles or employees will get you whenever they can.


Kinda funny how the people who alerted you to the fact that it was missing don't understand the difference between a DNF and a find.

While I understand the reasons for you archiving them both, quite frankly the avenger side of me would have not picked it up, let the manager call the bomb squad and then have to explain why they put it in their office, called you and then put it back before calling them. Fees for services would have been fun for them to explain.

Unfortunately, without something in writing, Challenging does no good/ In the one case it was less paranoia of which there is way too much anyway, and more of a power trip.

#43 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 18887
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 09 January 2010 - 03:59 PM

View Postnlinecylon, on Jan 9 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jan 9 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

Even if permission was obtained from "someone" to place the cache, expecting that everyone that works there, or, as you say, muggles with cell phones, will "get the memo" is pretty unlikely. The only real solution here is to stop placing geocaches in public parking lots.
Maybe the reviewers need to stop approving such.
Naw... I think they should require the standard geocaching sticker attached to it the lamp skirt in plain sight.

#44 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 18887
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:00 PM

View PostGOF & Bacall, on Jan 8 2010, 11:36 PM, said:

Don't forget about the time they blew up the DMV traffic counter.
For those that are new here... GOF is not kidding. This really did happen, and not all that long ago!

#45 User is offline   bittsen 

  • Über Genius - vol.3.05
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4764
  • Joined: 03-August 08

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:21 PM

As I have said before. Maybe the bomb squads of the US should get free premium memberships to Geocaching.com so they can do a quick search whenever they are responding. When they get to the scene, they always do a threat assessment anyhow. As part of the threat assessment they could check to see if it might be a geocache.

I know, it's too logical.

#46 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 18887
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:25 PM

View Postbittsen, on Jan 9 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

As I have said before. Maybe the bomb squads of the US should get free premium memberships to Geocaching.com so they can do a quick search whenever they are responding. When they get to the scene, they always do a threat assessment anyhow. As part of the threat assessment they could check to see if it might be a geocache.
I know, it's too logical.
And as the PTB have said, every time you've said that... they can get those free accounts. :P

edit: (sorry, haven't been able to find a link to it, but I'm sure someone will post it)

This post has been edited by knowschad: 09 January 2010 - 04:29 PM


#47 User is offline   bittsen 

  • Über Genius - vol.3.05
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4764
  • Joined: 03-August 08

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:29 PM

View Postknowschad, on Jan 9 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

View Postbittsen, on Jan 9 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

As I have said before. Maybe the bomb squads of the US should get free premium memberships to Geocaching.com so they can do a quick search whenever they are responding. When they get to the scene, they always do a threat assessment anyhow. As part of the threat assessment they could check to see if it might be a geocache.
I know, it's too logical.
And as the PTB have said, every time you've said that... they can get those free accounts. :P


My statement wasn't that Groundspeak didn't offer them but that the Police Departments aren't taking the opportunity to get them.

The police depts are at fault, not Groundspeak (or the cachers)

#48 User is offline   GOF and Bacall 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6679
  • Joined: 24-September 06

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:33 PM

View Postbittsen, on Jan 9 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

As I have said before. Maybe the bomb squads of the US should get free premium memberships to Geocaching.com so they can do a quick search whenever they are responding. When they get to the scene, they always do a threat assessment anyhow. As part of the threat assessment they could check to see if it might be a geocache.

I know, it's too logical.


There are two problems with your idea. The first is that, if I recall correctly, GS will already do that for any law enforcement agency that asks. The second is that no bomb squad is going to assume that a package is harmless because a geocache is supposed to be at or near the location. They are, rightly, going to assume the worse until proven otherwise. If they start using GC listings as evidence that the item is not a bomb someone will figure it out and list their bomb as a cache or place a bomb in an existing cache.

Bomb squads have one job and one job only. Make safe.

#49 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:37 PM

View Postknowschad, on Jan 9 2010, 03:59 PM, said:

View Postnlinecylon, on Jan 9 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on Jan 9 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

Even if permission was obtained from "someone" to place the cache, expecting that everyone that works there, or, as you say, muggles with cell phones, will "get the memo" is pretty unlikely. The only real solution here is to stop placing geocaches in public parking lots.
Maybe the reviewers need to stop approving such.
Naw... I think they should require the standard geocaching sticker attached to it the lamp skirt in plain sight.


If you're joking, which I assume you are, put some smiley or laughing icons in there. :P

Speaking of "muggles with cell phones" as I'm also quoting, according to the updated article at MyWestTexas.com, it was indeed a concerned muggle who reported a guy walking around to lampskirts before leaving a "suspicious package" under one of them to an employee of the store, who called the MDP. It seems rather obvious there was no permission in the case of this cache, but even if there was, you bet the bomb squad would be showing up anyways under that scenario.

#50 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 18887
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 09 January 2010 - 04:39 PM

View PostGOF & Bacall, on Jan 9 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

View Postbittsen, on Jan 9 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

As I have said before. Maybe the bomb squads of the US should get free premium memberships to Geocaching.com so they can do a quick search whenever they are responding. When they get to the scene, they always do a threat assessment anyhow. As part of the threat assessment they could check to see if it might be a geocache.
I know, it's too logical.

There are two problems with your idea. The first is that, if I recall correctly, GS will already do that for any law enforcement agency that asks. The second is that no bomb squad is going to assume that a package is harmless because a geocache is supposed to be at or near the location. They are, rightly, going to assume the worse until proven otherwise. If they start using GC listings as evidence that the item is not a bomb someone will figure it out and list their bomb as a cache or place a bomb in an existing cache.
Bomb squads have one job and one job only. Make safe.
Wellllllllllllllllllllll...... yes, and no. Yes, they are going to "make it safe" anyway. BUT... if they did do some research and learned that a cache was supposed to be at that location (or the cache had a geocaching sticker), at least the attitude when the blow it up is much more likely to be "well, sorry we have to dispose of your geocache, but we really don't have a choice", then blowing it up, only to find afterward that all they did was to blow up a game piece.

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic