Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is one of those perfect sighting reports...2 people driving at night, both see the Sasquatch crossing the road, both agree on what they are saw...very cut and dry in my opinion.
There are so many reports exactly like this one!
Ive heard a few folks theorize that Sasquatch 'allows' certain people to see them on occasion, but Im starting to think that maybe Sasquatches just cross the road A LOT, and subsequently, they end up getting seen more often by drivers...seems logical, Im sure they cover quite a lot of ground in one day, hunting and all, and roads are all over these areas, so it makes sense they would be crossing roads frequently.
There are a million and one ways to dispute eyewitness testimony. One can’t just assume these people are credible, for example. If they were two judges who also happened to be wildlife experts who also happened to have perfect vision, okay, strong argument. But Joe and Jane Schmo who think they saw a squatch? Meh
You cannot use a telephone interview as proof of Big Foot and that is what you have with this report. We don't know anything about the people reporting except what a BFRO 'researcher' tells us they obtained from a phone interview. This would not be accepted in a court of law or in any scientific journal.
Because it is just someone's claim. If I don't know these people at all, why should I believe them? They could be lying. They could be crazy. They could be doing it for the attention. Or they could be telling the truth.
Without any other corroborating evidence, this remains a UWO --- an Unidentified Walking Object. Or maybe to be more accurate, a CUWO, a Claim of an Unidentified Walking Object.
I have seen weird things in my life that I can't explain. And I leave it at that. I can't explain them.
Because it is just someone's claim. If I don't know these people at all, why should I believe them? They could be lying. They could be crazy. They could be doing it for the attention. Or they could be telling the truth.
Without any other corroborating evidence, this remains a UWO --- an Unidentified Walking Object. Or maybe to be more accurate, a CUWO, a Claim of an Unidentified Walking Object.
I have seen weird things in my life that I can't explain. And I leave it at that. I can't explain them.
You are right, there is no way to verify what they saw and given the nature of the internet, I doubt they want their full names and contact info listed in the report...
But the thing to keep in mind, they are reporting something, that many many other people have also reported seeing...eventually, so many people, all reporting the same kinds of things...it gives it a certain degree of credibility,
And I doubt anyone would turn in such a report for 'attention'...that kind of attention is the NEGATIVE type, the type that makes others think less of you, or laugh at you.
You cannot use a telephone interview as proof of Big Foot and that is what you have with this report. We don't know anything about the people reporting except what a BFRO 'researcher' tells us they obtained from a phone interview. This would not be accepted in a court of law or in any scientific journal.
VERY FEW people would be OK with having their names, address, contact info listed on the internet, for all to see associated with a Bigfoot report. its the nature of the internet, you dont know who some of the people are or what their intentions are.
Its why people that sell things online meet in public places, with online dating too, at the first meeting, most people prefer it to be somewhere public, with lots of people around (just in case its some wacko)
You are right, there is no way to verify what they saw and given the nature of the internet, I doubt they want their full names and contact info listed in the report...
Yeah. I don't blame them. But it's why there is one rule to keep in mind for things like this: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. It's fun. But credible evidence? Nope. Testimonies like these might be credible. They might not. Without knowing the person, there is absolutely no way to know.
If someone I have known for twenty years and found to be impeccably honest and level-headed tells me he saw a goblin in the woods, I am at the very least going to believe that he believes he saw something. If it's some nameless person on the Internet? Not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
But the thing to keep in mind, they are reporting something, that many many other people have also reported seeing...eventually, so many people, all reporting the same kinds of things...it gives it a certain degree of credibility.
"Credibility" might be a stretch. "Interesting?" Definitely. But it's also striking how varied so many of the reports are on details. Bigfoot is huge. No, he's small. He's strictly bipedal. Nope, he can walk on all fours. Bigfoot is an aggressive hunter. Nope, he's a peaceful forest ape.
And you also have to keep in mind: When myths and urban legends grow, sometimes people see what they want to see. There are people in Iceland today who believe in elves. There are people in Ireland who believe in fairies. Lots of New Agers believe they are descended from Egyptian royalty. Amazing how many Egyptians get reborn on the Internet.
And I doubt anyone would turn in such a report for 'attention'...that kind of attention is the NEGATIVE type, the type that makes others think less of you, or laugh at you.
Which is why they don't leave their name. But there are some people who do enjoy "tweaking" the true believers. Pranks can be fun. I get the appeal, even if I think they can turn cruel really quickly.
Yeah. I don't blame them. But it's why there is one rule to keep in mind for things like this: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. It's fun. But credible evidence? Nope. Testimonies like these might be credible. They might not. Without knowing the person, there is absolutely no way to know.
If someone I have known for twenty years and found to be impeccably honest and level-headed tells me he saw a goblin in the woods, I am at the very least going to believe that he believes he saw something. If it's some nameless person on the Internet? Not so much.
"Credibility" might be a stretch. "Interesting?" Definitely. But it's also striking how varied so many of the reports are on details. Bigfoot is huge. No, he's small. He's strictly bipedal. Nope, he can walk on all fours. Bigfoot is an aggressive hunter. Nope, he's a peaceful forest ape.
And you also have to keep in mind: When myths and urban legends grow, sometimes people see what they want to see. There are people in Iceland today who believe in elves. There are people in Ireland who believe in fairies. Lots of New Agers believe they are descended from Egyptian royalty. Amazing how many Egyptians get reborn on the Internet.
Which is why they don't leave their name. But there are some people who do enjoy "tweaking" the true believers. Pranks can be fun. I get the appeal, even if I think they can turn cruel really quickly.
And I do not believe everything I read on the internet, Ive mentioned this many times, but some posters on here think I believe EVERY report I read, (that is simply not true), its maybe half at the most...there are so many sightings I read, that I dont believe at all...Ive even posted some of these on here, to give an example of those I DO NOT believe.
Basically, the reports I look for, are close distance, and where it doesnt appear like the witness is embellishing... Can I be 100% positive that Im right?...of course not, but the more 'similar' reports I read, that span long time periods, from different regions of the world, all giving the same basic description...yeah, I think its very possible those people saw something extraordinary.
I do admit the lack of physical, photo/video evidence is strange/suspicious, but I think there is probably an explanation for that...that, if we ever do document one of these creatures, people will say, "Oh now I see why they were so elusive for so long"...
I dont believe they are 100% natural animals (flesh and blood), there is 'something' else going on...either supernatural, paranormal, dimensional, etc
I dont believe they are 100% natural animals (flesh and blood), there is 'something' else going on...either supernatural, paranormal, dimensional, etc
Maybe. It makes for fun conversation. But until some credible evidence comes to light, I'm not ready to do more than speculate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or maybe to be more accurate, a CUWO, a Claim of an Unidentified Walking Object.
