Sasquatch Coffee

Thanksgiving Bigfoot Sighting in West Virginia

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 21st, 2011

Local Residents Spot Bigfoot In West Virginia

For decades its existence has been debated, thorough searches have found no conclusive evidence, but a pair of Tipp City women reportedly have the definite answer as they claim to have seen…Bigfoot. Terri Bessler and Crystal Krieger were driving through West Virginia when in the clear of day they spotted the behemoth mythical figure. It was walking up a truck ramp, off of the highway, up into the wooded mountains.

“It was huge, there is no way it was a person,” said Bessler, owner of Midwest Memories. The figure was a solid shade of black, and showed no definition of any clothing lines.

Krieger is in agreement that the ever elusive Bigfoot was seen. “If it was a real person, it was the biggest person in the world. And where would they be going? There is nothing up there but woods,” she said.

Unfortunately, Bessler could not tame her anxiety ridden hands enough to get a picture. By the time she maintained enough control of her phone to take one, they were around the curve and out of viewing distance.

The purpose of their excursion was to pick up Krieger’s son Cody, a 2011 graduate of Tippecanoe High School, from North Carolina and bring him home for Thanksgiving. In the U.S Marines, Cody is stationed at Camp Geiger for the School of Infantry.

They were enjoying just a typical drive through the mountains of West Virginia, when Bigfoot was clearly spotted and could not be anything else. The women estimate they were less than half a mile away from the Sasquatch and its size was in no way proportionate to a human. Neither their vision nor judgment was impaired in any way. “We weren’t sleep deprived or juiced up on caffeine,” said Bessler.

They expect that not everyone will believe their story, but they are certain of what they saw and urge everyone to keep an eye out for Bigfoot next time they travel through West Virginia.

Source: Tippecanoe Gazette
Written by Mike Woody

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.


30 Responses to “Thanksgiving Bigfoot Sighting in West Virginia”

  1. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    “…less than half a mile away…” can still be a long ways to i.d. something, especially if they were traveling at a brisk speed.

  2. Sasquatch Up Close responds:

    So…they were “less than half a mile” from the figure? What’s that…seven or eight football fields? And still it looked huge, much bigger than a person? What’s wrong with this picture?

  3. SlamesR responds:

    Deer hunting season begins on November 21 in West Virginia. Hunters have good reason to be walking towards the woods. Camouflage could easily result in confusion and “show no definition of any clothing lines.” One woman driving and the other fumbling for her phone as they traveled around a WV curve make an already untrustworthy eyewitness report even less so. It’s also possible that they saw a bear, though I’d say a regular ol’ human or the classic shrub/post/various-inanimate-object-squatch is far more likely.

  4. sasquatch responds:

    WOAH!

  5. DWA responds:

    The only thing I find funnier than sighting reports – which I actually don’t find funny at all – is the expert debunking by all the people who were right there and KNOW what it was.

    Bear. Sheesh.

  6. Jerry D. Coleman responds:

    Just another story for believers to claim as evidence and skeptics to red flag as another example of poor witness testimony, which again leaves those who patiently wait for discovery or at least something solid to hang their hat on is ~ Noted, Logged and Filed.

  7. DWA responds:

    I would agree that less than a half-mile is a considerable distance.

    I’m also sure that they didn’t use electro-magneto-triangulation to ascertain the precise distance. They tossed off a guesstimate; that’s allowed. One football field is “less than a half-mile” too. Imprecise estimates don’t make a sighting illegitimate.

    Too many knee-jerk debunks take every guesstimate as a precision number that can now be debunked.

    I might also say that at that distance, “too big to be a human” would still be obvious.

    I might also say: none of us were there, as none of us are for most sasquatch reports.

    I might also say: it’s useless to debunk individual reports. We can just say everybody’s crazy and be done.

    Or we could be actually curious, and attempt to figure out what could prompt two people to risk ridicule by reporting something so microscopically invisible to them. “Two flighty broads” is to me insufficient, and that’s what at least one of the above debunks sounds like to me.

  8. DWA responds:

    Jerry D. Coleman:

    PRECISELY.

    Or as I like to put it:

    One more on the ever-growing pile.

  9. Lack of Evidence responds:

    DWA,

    You kill me with your reasoning. I understand where you are coming from, I really do. You want this thing to be real so bad that you will always have something to make it real.

    “I’m also sure that they didn’t use electro-magneto-triangulation to ascertain the precise distance. They tossed off a guesstimate; that’s allowed. One football field is “less than a half-mile” too. Imprecise estimates don’t make a sighting illegitimate.”

    The sighting is worthless and let me explain how. None of the women were able to get a picture or anything other than say I saw this thing. I’m very skeptical of people who say something from that distance and immediately go to, “there is no way it was a person”. Ok, why not jump to the next logical thing…..a hairy manbeast that’s existence has not been proven (that makes a lot of sense).

    I wish they would have taken a picture, because it would have been a brown smudge that could be a cow and I could have relished in all of the “Bigfoot Experts” say that you can clearly see that this is the real deal. I’ve seen your evidence and if that’s what you want to call it, then it’s pathetic. Share with me some real evidence that will stand alone if you have it….if not, quit trying to come to the defense of the mentally ill.

  10. DWA responds:

    Hey! Just found a report that might be relevant to this discussion.

    Here it is.

    Note that the witness uses the phrase, “less than maybe half a mile away,” and that he goes on to give a height estimate that is surprisingly within the midrange of sightings.

    Note also this by the follow-up investigator:

    “He took me to the exact point on the lake where he had his possible sighting. Looking back to the west, it seemed to me about 500 yards away. …”

    A half-mile is precisely 880 yards. Quite a diff there. Read the sighting. You’re tossing it on that estimate?

    I’m not.

    Humans have pretty good eyesight. A half-mile away isn’t near as far as some seem to think.

  11. DWA responds:

    Lack of Evidence: why do you come here? Is it to feel superior?

    You got to trust me here. The impression you are leaving with me is precisely the opposite.

    I am sorry that Patty ditched you when you were 15 and that Santa isn’t real. I trust you will recover.

  12. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    Lack of Evidence:

    You don’t get it. To DWA Skepticism is wrong. You should BELIEVE in this creature and never try to debunk any (purported) sighting for ANY reason.

    DWA doesn’t understand what constitutes evidence.

    DWA doesn’t understand what would constitute proof.

    DWA believes that even when people bring in DNA the “scientists” somehow block the word from getting out. They lie about the test results or lose the samples, etc etc.

    DWA doesn’t realize that there are a lot of independent DNA testing labs out there and if you pony up the cash you’ll get an honest answer from them.

    They don’t care one way or another as long as you pay their fee.

    But DWA lives in a dream world far removed from what most of us like to call reality.

    DWA is happy there. It’s cool.

    Let it go.

  13. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    “In clear of day they spotted the behemoth mythical figure”. Now tell me, what exactly is so ‘mythical’ about an unknown hominid? No really, I want to know why people seem to get the impression that these creatures are ‘mythical’ or ‘supernatural’. We know that hominids have existed in the past, so why is it so out-of-the-question to assume that they are still alive today?

  14. William responds:

    Lack of Evidence you are worse than DWA in your opposite approach as you have zero basis to believe these two women are “mentally ill.” It’s not like they claim they saw the Jolly Green Giant. Not to say there is not a great chance they were mistaken, especially at that distance. However, yours is an extremest view in making such an unfounded statement unless you were with them in the car! What I would like to know is if anyone followed up this sighting by investigating the area for signs, specifically tracks. Seems like this would be an opportunity for the SFBF team to be called in or at least one of the Bigfoot research organizations. That way, this could be investigated properly.

  15. SlamesR responds:

    “The only thing I find funnier than sighting reports – which I actually don’t find funny at all – is the expert debunking by all the people who were right there and KNOW what it was.

    Bear. Sheesh.”

    Hi DWA, I never put myself forward as an expert and I don’t claim to “KNOW” what those two people saw. The only thing I find funnier than sighting reports of bears- which I actually don’t find funny at all- is the expert debunking by you who was right there and know what it was. Sasquatch. Sheesh.

    You see, I gave “bear” as an unlikely explanation because it fits many of the characteristics described by the women. They are dark, often along WV highways, and can be seen standing on two legs. Also, there is the fact that they are known to science to exist. You should be more curious about bears.

    “I might also say that at that distance, “too big to be a human” would still be obvious.”

    First, let’s consider what “too big to be human” even means. Humans have grown to over 8 feet tall and tipped scales at over 1000 pounds. It’s largely meaningless phrase. The observers were traveling down a steep hill (the only places with off-ramps for trucks), around a curve, and looking up at a shape described by them to be “less than a half mile away” which we can assume means “not far, but not close.” So as this was going on, one was driving and the other was trying to take a picture with her phone, further limiting their observation. Traveling down a grade and looking up at a background of trees, what do they have to judge the size of the object by? They don’t know how big the trees are, how wide the ramp is, or how far away the object is. If you or Jerry D. Coleman would like I could refer you to some papers from the literature on eye-witness reports.

    “I might also say: it’s useless to debunk individual reports. We can just say everybody’s crazy and be done.Or we could be actually curious (…)”

    I agree in that the body of evidence is always more important than a single example. But there is a place for examining individual reports. You seem a little caught up on people “debunking” reports. That’s how science works. Scientists constantly analyze, criticize, and try to take their colleagues and their research down. That’s how science works. Frankly, it’s insulting that you would characterize skeptical people as approaching the topic with the mindset of “everybody’s crazy.” It demonstrates a lack of understanding and contempt of scientific inquiry. To imply that my approach wasn’t curious is laughable.

    “(…), and attempt to figure out what could prompt two people to risk ridicule by reporting something so microscopically invisible to them. “Two flighty broads” is to me insufficient, and that’s what at least one of the above debunks sounds like to me”

    You do realize the poster that brought up the distance said this “…less than half a mile away…” can still be a long ways to i.d. something, especially if they were traveling at a brisk speed.” Again your characterization is fallacious. To condense my post to “two flighty broads”-I apologize for dropping all pretenses here- is asinine.

    I’m not a “debunker” or an ideological “skeptic”. What I am is someone who approaches the topic seriously, and I suggest you do the same.

  16. D1metrodon responds:

    “Mentally ill”? Isn’t that a bit harsh? I agree that skepticism is healthy, but this seems to veer into outright anger. Perhaps thou dost protest too much?

  17. DWA responds:

    Lack of Evidence:

    So, you’re tossing the sighting because they didn’t have a camera?

    Not very scientific of you. Not that your name left any doubt on that point.

    Eyewitness sightings count. Doesn’t matter that they tossed off a guesstimate. Doesn’t matter that they didn’t have a camera. Thousands of people without cameras have risked ridicule to come forward and say they saw something “that doesn’t exist.” If you think they’re all crazy, an elementary grasp of statistics should reveal to you that most of the US population is unhinged. The sightings – without cameras! look at that! – give searchers a very clear picture of where to look and how, the only things required being the time in the field that no one is putting in, and the money to put in that time. This animal is being seen in places that a biologist would expect it to be. Hallucinations don’t do that.

    The reports are evidence; you simply commit the fundamental scoffer error of wanting to toss every piece of evidence that doesn’t amount to proof. Nobody with a scientific frame of mind does that. (If you’re a scientist…oh who am I kidding?)

    And you think these two are mentally deficient. What, you know them? I tend not to trust anything said to me by people who go off half-cocked. I am cautious in the extreme, unlike you, when it comes to evidence, which should be a clear indicator to you how much you need to read to get up to speed. Talking to folks like you gets old, fast. Do you troll sites like this for some academic purpose?

    The reports that really make me laugh are the ones by scoffers like you, who saw something “that didn’t exist” and kept quiet for months or even years, torturing themselves mentally, convinced they were insane, over nothing more than a silly old ape, that thousands of sightings and the extant fossil record would lead one to expect to be the source of all this evidence. In other words, they were ignorant. Me? I know my senses don’t deceive me. But people like you?

    An open mind could preserve your sanity one day, dude.

    Get one.

  18. DWA responds:

    Cass: a remedial course in English might help you understand me. You are one of a select number of posters here who reads my stuff and comes away 180 degrees wrong about what I think. That’s impressive. No wonder you haven’t found the big guy yet; you’re facing the wrong direction, buddy!

    Jonathen Poulsen: ignorance is a powerful beast. Taming it takes time. I mean, read some of the crap right up there. I guess we just gotta be patient.

    Dimetrodon: no kidding, dude! You just gotta wonder why some people come here.

    Slames: approaching the topic seriously means not jumping to conclusions. I didn’t; but it seems some people just don’t understand what that is. Nailing this down as x, when you weren’t there, is the height of silly…unless you think I did that, which is sillier. Jerry Coleman and I tell you exactly how to treat this one. If you want to be serious, it’s the only way. Unless you just consider women so incompetent that two of them can’t handle a cell phone and a car between them, which it sounds as if you do. I’ve been on more WV curves than you will see in your life, and seen animals a whole lot smaller than a sasquatch, clearly, while doing so.

    One thing I have never seen: a bear, walking up a truck ramp, on two legs. And one of the best bets to be made on this board is that I’ve seen more bears in the wild than anyone posting on this thread. You’ll never see a bear on two legs walking on a road. Bank on that.

  19. Opalman responds:

    @ lack of Evidence
    Tell me sir; what’s it like to be so unhappy, (cause I don’t know), that you get some kind of perverse joy by calling others folks, you never even met, liars? If that weren’t bad enough you go on to make totally derogatory remarks when you are, rightfully called out for your insulting disrespect of others opinions by other posters. I suppose you’re the only one allowed to have opinions here on this board.

    I wouldn’t care a rat’s ass about the likes of you except for the fact that your disrespectful ways of stating your opinion effects nice people who might not be accustomed to dealing with negativity dwellers and miserable fools such as yourself. Then no one gets to benefit by their reports. I doubt that the girls in question invented the sighting they reported and I’m pretty certain they absolutely believe what they say. That’s my rightful opinion. Was it a sasquatch…who knows. I know that I once tracked a black bear; never getting closer than an occasional half-mile or so when he was crossing meadows and blueberry patches—I knew what it was and also how large a bear it was. The girl’s report is far, far from unbelievable. Where do you get off proclaiming their report as any kind of falsehood. As if you knew anything… Reading your posts I can well ascertain: you’re the kind of person who says anything to prove your point, whether it’s a truth or not. There are many discussion boards out there in which you would feel right at home. They’re all populated by small minded, unlearned, haters and naysayers. Hint, hint.

  20. springheeledjack responds:

    Uh yeah. Just because we don’t get a blow by blow, full forensic low down from two people, does not make their encounter bunk. People’s ability to judge distance is flawed…usually it’s based on past experiences and even that may not be accurate. What I take from that IS: they were further away from the figure than your average football field and less than what they would consider a “mile.” It well could have been a half mile away, but might have been much less.

    What else stands out was the confidence that it was too big to be human. At a distance, I doubt most people would consider size of a figure an issue unless it stood out. To me, it says they saw something that was bigger than a human being should have been. And so from there, you can start theorizing what they might have seen. A bear? Well we all know (well we should), that yes, while a bear can walk on its hind legs, its legs are short and stubby and not built for such nonsense, and a bear would hardly use walking on its hind legs as a means of locomotion, especially heading uphill. And it also wouldn’t do it for any great distance. So go from there.

    As for DWA not being skeptical…are you kidding me? You need to go look that word up in the dictionary and find out what it really means. Then come back here.

    And pictures? Yeah, because they’re worth so much in this day and age. PhotoExpert had a really good post one time about how yes, any person with a camera can take pictures, but unless you know what you’re doing with a camera (and I’d guess 99% of us realllllly don’t), you’re going to end up with the classic blobsquatches because

    1) People get excited and don’t take good photos,

    2) They’re shooting pics of moving targets,

    3) Their cameras aren’t built for what they’re really trying to do with them,

    4) Several other things I don’t remember PhotoExpert expounding on, but it was a good call on the camera front.

    AND again, as DWA has said, I’ve said and a host of others have said…one report…yes, that’s all it is…and there’s no way to factually account to whether it’s true, hoaxed, etc. BUT, it adds to the ongoing collection. I do NOT buy the argument that if you can debunk a single report, they must all be false. That is invalid. That’s not logical reasoning.

    If you don’t believe in Bigfoot by all means don’t. It’s a free site…but don’t expect the more discerning, skeptical types here to buy your flimsy reasons for there not being an unknown cryptid afoot in the wilderness of the U.S. and Canada. If you can’t make reasonably logical arguments, you’re neither going to impress us, or win us over to your line of thinking.

  21. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    Hey, gang! It’s almost Christmas. If these two ladies say they saw Bigfoot..okay, they saw Bigfoot.

    I can see it now…Bigfoot drops in to the local Cryptid/Alien/Paranormal Nightclub (Hang-OVER 18, they call it—it’s just North of Chillicothe, Ohio) and he’s there having a Bloody Mary (of course, you have to ask for it THREE times to get it) and about the time his drink arrives who should come in but MOTHMAN!!!

    Well, Mothman takes one look at Bigfoot and says “Hey, man, you look like HELL!”

    Bigfoot gulps his drink and says “Yeah?”

    “Yeah,” says Mothman.

    Meanwhile, the Bartender…who used to go by the name of the Flatwoods Monster….chimes in with a “I noticed that too but I didn’t want to say anything. What’s the matter BF?”

    Bigfoot shakes his head. “I dunno. I’m just tired all the time. I got that damn Moneymaker guy chasing me all over with his TV cameras and it’s wearin’ me out. I’m gettin’ too OLD for this.”

    Mothman pats him gently on the back, “Ever been to West Virginia?” he says.

    “No.”

    “Well, you simply MUST go…it’s a beautiful state and there’s no more restful woodland glades anywhere in the US.”

    “Really?” says Bigfoot.

    “It’s true,” says the Flatwoods Monster. “I passed through there once when the Jersey Devil and I were on our way to Rio for the Carnival. It’s BEAUTIFUL there!”

    “And don’t forget,” says Chuck Chupacabra who had been listening in. “Moneymaker won’t be looking for you THERE!”

    “That’s RIGHT!” says Bigfoot, a big toothy grin spreading across his features. “I’ll GO!” he says.

    And he did. And that’s when the two women saw him.

    I kid you not.

  22. DWA responds:

    Slames: Oh, don’t worry. You won’t find anyone here who takes the topic more seriously than me.

    Too many people here seem “hung up” on debunking individual reports. That’s not my problem. It’s theirs. When your house is on fire, do you yell at the firemen: hey, the patch where I’m standing is fine? No. All attention is on the blaze. Including yours.

    Almost all the skeptical attention when it comes to this topic, however, is on the spot where the individual reporter is standing. Meanwhile, the blaze goes on. Smell that smoke?

    There is no basis for debunking this report. One of the basic building blocks of a serious approach to this topic is understanding that. Period. Say what you want. There is no more basis to say they didn’t see this than to say they did. Period. As Jerry Coleman and I say: it goes on the pile that all that smoke is rising from, the smoke that indicates there might be a fire there. Why would these women say this? Do you run around yelling bigfoot? Is most of the population – many of them out there driving vehicles and bearing weapons when they had their sightings – unhinged? THAT is what you should be worrying about.

    The things you toss out there have no substantiation. Is it conceivable you could be right? Well, who cares? Can you prove you are? No.

    THAT is a serious approach, knowing which battles to fight, and knowing when to, as Jerry says, note, log and file. That’s the only way to deal with this one. Deal with it.

  23. DWA responds:

    Slames:

    Your approach isn’t serious. Here’s why.

    Once again, the scientific issue in the case of the sasquatch is a massive, broad and deep PILE of evidence, of just about every kind that we find for animals we know about. At least that is what’s alleged. What everyone who is actually curious wants to know is: what’s generating that pile? Why, when it points to something guidebook-consistent being described by sane people, conforming to biogeographical rules and living in just the places a biologist postulating such a species would expect, would it make sense to toss it all off to illusions and misidentifications? Do those follow biogeographical rules?

    (If you’re not sure where I’m getting that, a serious approach requires close acquaintance with the evidence.)

    So.

    How is your approach moving the needle? Answer: it isn’t. A serious approach needs to.

    What you need to do is to show, for every single sighting report ever, not what it could be based on your armchair guess-so. You need to show WHAT IT IS. Every one of them. Or at least enough of them – you know, several hundred or so – to serve notice that the remainder are, how shall we say, problematical. Even then, as George Schaller says, only one of them has to be authentic for the animal to be real. You know who he is, right?

    Scientists don’t pick around the edges of the pile. They assault the pile, either by showing – conclusively – what the pile represents, or by searching for the putative cause of the pile, to describe and catalog it.

    So. Let’s see a serious approach here. Sitting in an armchair and saying, you know that could be a bear, right? isn’t serious. I’m taking their opinion over yours, if I had to bet money. Serious bets on who was there, not who wasn’t. Unless there is a serious reason – you offer none, nor does anyone else, and I have been on enough WV roads fumbling with a cellphone to tell you that – to doubt them. On this one, there isn’t.

    On the pile. Now what’s causing the PILE? That’s the serious approach. Addressing the pile moves the needle. This, not so much.

    (Mine? Educating and informing budding young cryptos – the ones who will solve the mysteries – on the pitfalls of the field, including scattershot skepticism in ignorance of the mass of evidence. Count on it: moving the needle.)

  24. Lack of Evidence responds:

    Ease up a bit gentlemen. I come here just as you do. It would be really something if this thing existed and that curiosity to see what is going on in the community brings us here. I don’t mean to put down anyone’s beliefs and I know it sounded like that. It becomes a bit of a spectacle watching some of this stuff unfold that it truly becomes unbelievable. I would really like to see something compelling come out, but going off of history, it seems it will be one more disappointment after another. My mental illness comment was a joke by the way. I don’t really believe those women are crazy, I just can’t understand why they immediately jump to it wasn’t human.

    Have a merry Christmas.

  25. DWA responds:

    Slames:

    I need to add one more thing, about this.

    “Frankly, it’s insulting that you would characterize skeptical people as approaching the topic with the mindset of “everybody’s crazy.” It demonstrates a lack of understanding and contempt of scientific inquiry. To imply that my approach wasn’t curious is laughable.”

    Actually, that’s laughable. Telling people what they saw, when you were not even there, is NOT A CURIOUS APPROACH! Unless you mean that it’s “curious” for its lack of curiosity. Then we agree. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY SAW, and I have not shred one of confidence in your ability to tell me. what are your credentials for long-distance cyberdebunking? None? (Agreed.) Now. Were? YOU? THERE????

    NO!

    Good. I’m done.

    What did they see? Why would they go doing this? Why have thousands of others? That I can tell, no one has gotten rich off it; no one has gotten the 15 minutes they wanted (although some have gotten 15 minutes, they all pretty much want to have them back); and no one has gotten credit for anything but coming forward (from the proponents) and being loony (from the skeptics).

    That’s why it’s:

    on the pile.

    Now, the SERIOUS question for SERIOUS people:

    WHAT IS CAUSING THE PILE?

    (I see a distressing tendency not to read on this board. So you see LOTS of caps from me. Do what I do, gang. READ.)

  26. DWA responds:

    Opalman: you weren’t nice!

    You were just RIGHT.

  27. Nny responds:

    Cass~

    It’s Christmas!

    And you’ve got a problem for some reason.

    And that’s funny.

  28. DWA responds:

    SHJ: I was wondering where you were. Nice post.

  29. springheeledjack responds:

    Of course this topic gets frustrating from time to time…it’s the nature of the business folks. We’re studying cryptozoology…hunt for as yet unknown animals….that ring a bell?

    Of course we’d all love to have the holy grail of evidence fall into our laps and elevate one of the great cryptids from legend status to accepted truth…and we’ll get there, but in the meantime, we have to sift through what we’ve got. AND, that means looking over and through reports like this to decide if it’s valid as a plausible BF sighting or if it’s explainable by other means. You can’t say with certainty that any one report is 100% yea or nay…because it’s usually second hand accounts, someone else’s, or even third hand. Maybe one out of a hundred times you get a picture that’s most likely grainy or blobby, or maybe a video. You have to wade through all the hoaxsters because of all of the advanced technology available to the average imbecile, and then work it down from there.

    The point is, that’s what this site IS all about. We go through the evidence presented to give our two cents on whether it has merit as a solid account or not. I’m all for being skeptical–you have to, to weed out the idiots who hoax stuff for their fifteen minutes of fame, and the just plain old fashioned misidentifications. However, sometimes it’s just as easy to look past the integrity of a sighting and just throw it into the “fake” pile because everything else up to that point has been blobsquatches and hoaxes. It’s easy to get disillusioned because this science is sparse on pay-off, AND because there’s little respect for cryptozoology, AND because we have to deal with all of the idiots who have nothing better to do on a Saturday night other than hoke up some fake BF evidence.

    THAT’s why Craig and Loren and the others throw stuff out here on this site–to try to get the rest of us to really look at these encounters with a hard, but fair eye. They’re helping us train ourselves by evaluating the reports that come in. And here, we should be discussing the validity of a particular report based on the information we can glean from it to decide just that.

    What we shouldn’t be doing, is making hip-shot judgement calls and then bashing everyone who doesn’t agree with us.

    I’m all for listening to theories–provided you back it up with some sort of valid reasoning, and I may just go along with you if the reasoning is sound. But if you make crack statements and one liners without anything other than a smart comment to back it up, I’m not going to take you seriously, and I do believe that’s what has twisted this entire post around.

    We started with two main premises here: they saw it at a distance (maybe less than a half mile), and that it appeared bigger than a human…or that it was so large that the two women couldn’t believe it was human. Those were the details that stood out. That’s good. It’s something tangible to start with, and then discuss that…without firing on each other.

    We’re never going to know or be able to discern from the tiny amount of info we have on this whether they saw a BF or not. As has been said, throw it on the pile–to me that means there is enough doubt as to whether it was human or not that it goes into the growing list of sightings. IT doesn’t mean that by throwing it into that pile that it was automatically a Bigfoot sighting, but there’s enough unknowns to make this particular sighting possibly a BF sighting.

    To me the purpose of all of these sightings is to try to build a database of sightings that we can draw patterns from over time. If we get enough concentrations of sightings in a region we may be able to start picking out patterns of movement and behavior to be able to anticipate where and when we could find these things. AND if in the end there really is no Bigfoot, then we should be able to figure that out too, because they won’t behave according to those patterns. :)

    However, we should, as cryptos, take every sighting serious as a possible sighting–then see if we can find mundane answers. It’s when we can’t solve the sighting with mundane everyday answers that it gets thrown into that other “pile.” AND if we take these sightings seriously, more people may come forward that have had encounters, which will just increase our database over time and give us more to go on.

    Alright, I’ve rattled on enough. Merry Xmas, Happy Hannukah, enjoy whatever holiday you do or don’t celebrate and I’ll check back in to my favorite online site in a couple of days. My best to Craig, Loren and the gang, and to all my other fellow Cryptomundians here…

  30. DWA responds:

    SHJ: Exactly.

    There’s a breed of True Believerism that’s risen up to counterbalance the proponent fringe. It’s the one that says “it’s a guy in a hoodie!” or such rot, when nothing in the report lends any credence to that interpretation. It’s gotta be a fake, because it ain’t proof! It’s True Believerism in the Mundane.

    Nature has thrown bigger surprises at us than an extant species of a kind of animal with many representatives in the fossil record that, if somebody saw one tomorrow, they’d say they saw a sasquatch. And lots of evidence – not just sightings – backs that interpretation up.

    These girls could receive a follow-up interview and two questions in, start giggling uncontrollably and admitting the joke. So. Anyone going there to do that? (Not me. I think the pile is more than big enough to toss this one if that’s what one must do.) There is damn little detail. But based on what there is, there is no more basis to toss out than to toss on The Pile. When that happens, The Pile is where it goes, that pile that says, man a lot of people are seeing this. There are even scientists that vouch for it. But we don’t have proof yet.

    Merry Christmas to all. Whatever holiday you substitute goes double. (There is a lot of Christmas out there, isn’t there.) And Happy New Year.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.