Black Sasquatch: Update
Posted by: Loren Coleman on September 3rd, 2008
Dale and Valerie Tompkins said they sighted a “Black Sasquatch” in New Brunswick.
In comments to their local newspaper, The Bugle-Observer, they shared exacting details.
Last weekend in York County, New Brunswick, a little after 7 p.m Sunday evening, August 17, 2008, and the couple were travelling in the Skiff Lake area, heading home from a visit with friends at Second Eel River Lake. That’s when they observed it – the huge upright animal they both firmly believe to be Bigfoot.
I know exactly what I saw….[The experience was] quite chilling … for a few minutes afterwards, especially….We were a half to three-quarters of a mile from the Skiff Lake sign in a densely wooded area when we came around a turn and saw a huge figure on the edge of the road. It looked down towards us then it walked across the road ahead of us just about 250 meters away….We own hunting and fishing camps and in the last 22 years we have brought in and weighed over 150 bears and I have seen 15 or 16 live ones, five this spring, so I know a bear when I see one. I know a bear can stand on its hind legs and move around, but a bear can’t walk on two legs the way this human-like form did. It crossed the road in three or four long steps, swinging its long arms like a human!….When we got home we went on the Internet and found pictures exactly like what we saw. There were pictures of brown ones and black ones. What we saw was a Black Sasquatch.Dale Tompkins.
Dale Tompkins said that at first he and Valerie thought it was a bear standing on its hind legs, but they soon realized they were seeing more than just a bear. The chip-sealed road measures 35 feet across at the place they saw it.
At the time of the sighting, the couple noticed a vehicle following closely behind them. With hopes that the driver had seen what they described as a “pitch-black, sleek, hairy, approximately 8-and-a-half foot sasquatch,” so they stopped him and his passenger along the road in Canterbury.
I know what we saw and I don’t care if people believe us or not. There are four of us who witnessed the same thing so why would we just make something like that up? We don’t want to be involved in what we feel people will only think of as a hoax.Anonymous couple contacted by The Bugle-Observer
We asked them if they saw what we saw and they said they did. They told us they were on their way home from their local area cottage. They were as excited as we were…If it was just someone dressed up, they sure did a good job. We believe we saw Bigfoot.Valerie Tompkins
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
I don’t like to say someone didn’t see what the said they did, but I just have a problem with the distance that they are giving. I don’t understand how they can say, with confidence, that the figure was 8.5 feet tall from a distance of 250 meters (approx. 820′ of 3 football fields) away. Also, even in good daylight and great weather conditions, you would be able to discern any definition of the object at that distance, not without binoculars or a scope or something, it’s just too freakin far away. The way they described it moving across the road is believable, and they do have witnesses, so I do believe they saw something, but what?
That has to be a miss-print. At 250 Meters they could have seen a cow in bowling shoes and thought it was bigfoot.
i don’t buy these stories of Bigfoot in the eastern seaboard of north America with all the human activity there for 300+years it just seems highly unlikely that a 7-8 foot 500 pound humanoid has been walking around there and has just mysteriously avoided some sort of major contact with the Europeans who settled eastern canada and the eastern US with most of the forests having been cut down at least once and the destruction of habitat for farming and industry it just does not make any logical sense. and at 250 meters at night wow they must have the best vision in the world maybe if it was at 10 feet in front of there car i’d take this more serious
All I will say is this: I’m not splitting hairs over feet or meters.
What this sounds like is that four people, in two vehicles one behind the other, are willing to put their reputations on the line (shoot, two of them are giving us a PICTURE) that they saw something very similar to something that a whole lot of other people have seen. If they said they saw it very clearly, six miles away, I’d at least have the curiosity to discuss it further rather than dismissing it because, well, you are not seeing it at 250 meters. (Um, by the way, yes you are. An upright figure of that size could, under most daylight conditions, be quite visible – and quite distinguishable as human or not – at that distance.) I’m not sure why people who are harping on that meaningless distance detail even come to Cryptomundo, with that rock-bottom level of curiosity.
I am constantly amazed at people’s utter inability to understand how the sasquatch might be real, in sizable numbers, and remain unconfirmed. Why, when every single report is laughed at or picked apart on meaningless details like distance estimates? How many times do I have to say this? If the sasquatch were ten times as big, one-fifth as smart, and twenty times as numerous, it would be unconfirmed with the treatment reports get. I would not be one bit surprised if at least 50 wildlife biologists have seen one in the field. You think one of them would talk about it? (Um, actually, a few have. With a result of….waiting for it….) If a sasquatch were squatting in an apartment on West 57th, I have a feeling the neighbors, shoot, the whole city, would be looking the other way. (“You were all the way ACROSS THE STREET! Coulda been a homeless guy.”)
I’ll admit that one thing rankles: researchers consistently fail to ask questions that are popping into my head as I read a report. I would want to know what is up with the 250 meters. Not, as I’ve pointed out, that they couldn’t see it. But under some conditions – at night, for example – it could be much harder. (Headlights aligned properly?) But this wasn’t at night. And, OK, admittedly, “in a densely wooded area when we came around a turn” does add a problem factor with that distance. But sheesh, to just say that two carloads of people – who didn’t even know each other before they saw this – are playing with us, on the distance estimate alone? I’d just want to know what they saw, examine their perceptions, get behind their story, check details. Too much to ask?
I personally would REALLY want to know why these folks are saying they saw this.
God, and listen to me. I’m a SKEPTIC. It’s just that people mystify me more than Bigfoot, sometimes.
And if anybody took it personally, that wasn’t intended. I just sometimes really understand proponents’ frustration. This would be one of those times.
steele79 you talk like the Eastern US is nothing but cities. I live in Virginia and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of miles of thick forests here. I live in a small town pretty much surrounded by mountains and forests on 2 sides.
I have witnessed a creature that can only have been a Sasquatch, not once, but twice myself. From a very close distance too. My first time seeing one it was actually only about 30ish feet away from me.
The 2nd time was much farther away, but my mom saw it too, and we watched it for quite a long time. At least half an hour.
Please don’t post your own preconceptions as fact. I would assume the western US being heavily heavily heavily populated to be a much worse place for a cryptid to survive. Obviously I’d be wrong on that account, since most reports are from that area. The sightings range all over the entire CONTINENTAL America. Not solely on the western half. >_>
DWA – One thing you failed to mention in your argument about my problems with “the distance” is not “what they saw”, but how they can estimate a height from that distance. How can someone confidently say something is 8.5′ tall from more than 1/8th of a mile away in any weather conditions?? That’s absolutely ridiculous and making that sort of wild speculation tends to take away some credibility from the witness. That is my opinion. And how you can think that distance “is a meaningless detail” is way beyond me. I would say distance, when trying to describe something known or unknown, is a pretty huge factor. Distance has effects on vision, especially 1/8th of a mile away. Jeez.
A correction to steele79. 7PM in August in Canada is not nighttime, it is still broad daylight. Visibility was then no factor at all. As to distance, while 250 meters is a ways, it is not near as far as you might think. With healthy eyesight and an unobstructed view it should be no problem to make out the color and shape of an object. I often am at my local soccer complex which is three adult fields wide by two fields long and I can see the far side and can make out humans standing or moving there and what color clothes they are wearing with little difficulty. I will admit, I’m not so sure about accurately stating their height (other than short, average or tall) or describing smaller details such as facial features, etc.
Cliff: People estimate height. And at that distance, I’m pretty sure you’d be able – if you got a good look, which not only they did but the people behind them apparently did too – to see it was bigger than a human.
From there, you’re tossing out a number. People do that. I bet nobody would bat an eyelash if he said he’d seen a bear. This is something actually easier to make out at that distance.
I don’t think it has a crippling effect on their account of what they saw. Again, people estimate height, all the time, and at least two of us on this blog don’t seem to think that distance is all that great in terms of a sighting like this. And of course, when all you are seeing is a written account, it could be a typo, although I wouldn’t bet on that. I’m not stopping there, though. I’m asking more questions.
Distance, to me, is a much less important factor than what they saw. At that distance, I’m not saying anything unless I am sure. And I’d think that – particularly when people are going to have some, well, interesting reactions to your account – you wouldn’t just come home screaming sas – you AND the car behind you – unless you were all sure.
THAT’S what I’m interested in. 250 meters? A number. Same with 8 and a half, approximately, which is one way to say: much bigger than a human.
I’ve seen people change their numbers during a follow-up interview that did nothing but enhance their credibility in my view. People estimate.
But they know what they see, generally speaking.
here on Cryptomundo we have heard about places where people only visit. Until recently most of the easterners have stayed near to their larger cities. It is now that some people have gotten the idea to build malls completely out of the way of the average person, and that’s where big foot has been. They do not have to live in complete seclusion. Just far enough out that most people leave them alone. They are smart. Smart enough to know where to go to be left alone.
Wutwuzit i never said that it was fact at all but it as a skeptic it just seems highly improbable that an animal of Bigfoot’s purported size would elude humans for so long in a heavy populated area such as eastern seaboard. it makes far more sense for an animal that size to hide in the Rockies but do you expect anyone to seriously believe that Bigfoot is hiding in new jersey or ny state even in Virginia ??? what does he live behind the 7-11 or something? it just does not make any logical sense not to have come across some physical evidence of Bigfoot if he was in the eastern seaboard. i would love to believe that there is Bigfoot in new jersey or Virginia besides sketchy reports of seeing something behind a tree or 200 meters away at dusk or a blurry picture that could show anything i want to believe but show me the body preferably not in a freezer
“We own hunting and fishing camps and in the last 22 years… ”
I wonder if they have camps available for bigfoot hunters? Are group rates available?
Sounds like someone is looking to increase their cashflow for the fall and coming year.
It might be a nice vacation, but I seriously doubt you’ll find any evidence of bigfoot.
Yeah DWA, I’m aware people estimate height, as I’m aware some people make wild speculations. I just don’t believe everything I read no matter how much I would like to believe it. I always look at the situation analytically to find truth or lack thereof. Not saying they didn’t see something, but as a Professional Engineer/Professional Land Surveyor, I have alot of experience out in the field and dealing with distances, and I can say with certainty that it would be very hard for even a trained eye to give a close approximation of the height of an object at over 1/8th of a mile away. Like I said before, and I stand by my original statements, that is purely a guess, much more so than an “estimate”. You can believe whatever you want to, but these stories are posted on this site for people to “take it as they will” and give their opinions. You made the comment earlier “I’m not sure why people who are harping on that meaningless distance detail even come to Cryptomundo, with that rock-bottom level of curiosity.” I’m curious, sure, but I’m also objective and analytical, and others are as well and after reading your posts attacking their “opinions” I have to wonder why you even come to this particular site that is willing to look at things from a debunking standpoint and not just taking everything every supposed witness says as complete and utter truth. I simply gave my professional/educated/experienced opinion that, knowing what I know about the subject, the height they reported is worthless information to me considering the circumstances.
cliff:
“I’m curious, sure, but I’m also objective and analytical, and others are as well and after reading your posts attacking their “opinions” I have to wonder why you even come to this particular site that is willing to look at things from a debunking standpoint and not just taking everything every supposed witness says as complete and utter truth.”
What I see here is a peculiar species of scoffticism that equates skepticism with wild-eyed belief.
Such a scoffticism is not acceptable in scientific inquiry, which yes, this is, and if you are uncomfortable with that, stick to surveying.
Or, just read my posts carefully. I hope you don’t let your emotions get this much in the way of your work. That would not be good.
Looking at things from “a debunking standpoint” is not an intellectual thiing to do; it’s close-minded in the extreme. I’ve never met anyone who does that who has much in the way of intellectual curiosity, and I’d like to see more people here rise above it.
One considers the facts of the case. I think I was really really clear that that guy was tossing out a number, and that that very human tendency does nothing to his credibility as a witness. One question that would be jumping out of my mouth is: how do you come to that estimate? At that distance, you can make a guess. And a good basis for that guess frequently comes from a follow-up interview. I’m not looking for calipers here.
Once again: if you are saying “go back to bed, nothing to see here” based on nothing but what you have read above, you are one of the main reasons a thriving sasquatch population could go undocumented by science.
Some of us, however, are interested in, well, finding out why somebody – and a couple of strangers in a car behind them – would go out of their way to risk making fools of themselves like this. And why thousands of others have done the exact same thing. If you really think there are that many people out there who just see something funny and shout “sasquatch,” I have to wonder how you get through the day. I’d move somewhere that people were sane, personally.
What anyone is doing who is not totally wasting their time on this site is: questioning assumptions. Including the comfortable assumption that not a single person like this saw what they say they saw.
swnoel – I was thinking the same thing earlier, lol. With all the press (albeit negative) Bigfoot has gotten lately, what better way to increase customers [to their fishing/hunting camps] than have a reported sighting.
That’s another reason I just didn’t have too much hope for this one, then considering the comments I felt were ridiculous about the height, it was starting to all add up for me. At that distance you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between something 6.5′ tall or 8.5′ tall.
I mean if you think about it, what height do people normally think of when the subject of Bigfoot comes up. If you look at a bunch of reports and take an average, I’d bet 8.5′ is pretty close. So someone sees something from 250 meters away, decides it’s Bigfoot, what height would you think they would report, hmm?
Or maybe the distance was part of the thinking when coming up with such a story. If we say it was 250 meters away, then we won’t be expected to report anything too definitive. Just too many problems with the story, and obviously no evidence. And then the kicker on the end “We don’t want to be involved in what we feel people will only think of as a hoax.” Of course if you were just trying to drum up some business you would say that, lol.
A couple of thoughts:
Cryptomundo is not a debunking site. A debunking site is more akin to Benjamin Radford’s “Skeptical Inquirer”. This website dispenses information that can be debated and commented on.
The area of Canada that this sighting took place is not exactly suburbia. I went to Google and found pictures that show this is a wooded area around a lake. It is called Skiff Lake area.
It’s interesting that the only item being really argued is the dimensions. 250 meters is a fairly long way. But not beyond human eyesight. This is not a city street with a lot of other items for the eye to focus on. Do I think that what they saw was exactly 8-1/2 feet tall? No. Do I think it was a 5-1/2 foot bear? No.
I have to wonder, and I know this has been brought up numerous times. Why the absolute disregard for “eyewitnesses”? We use our eyes to judge distance, weight, height, depth, color, texture, etc….
I realize that scientists, lawyers and others claim that no eyewitness can be trusted. That is illogical. Especially when SEARCHING for something. We can’t use our eyes? Infallible? Obviously not. Unacceptable evidence? Absolutely not.
I’m not saying they did see Sasquatch. But I surely won’t say they didn’t.
What was interesting to me was the fact that they thought they were seeing a bear at first, which is far more likely in that area, UNTIL IT MOVED. The movement of the creature is what changed their minds. That is very interesting to me.
DWA – wow, I don’t know where to start with responding to all that. Judging by your comments you are offended by what I have said and have let your emotions get involved. But I have to pick on this statement though: “Looking at things from “a debunking standpoint” is not an intellectual thiing to do; it’s close-minded in the extreme.” Wow, really, looking at things in an analytical an objective manner, considering all the facts and factors involved (past and present), and realizing that not everyone tells the truth for reasons of personal gain is a closed-minded thing to do, huh? I don’t know what kind of scientific background you have, I doubt any, really I do, because as an engineer (applied scientist) all this is just common sense to me. Problem solving, analysis, investigating, all come with the turf. No need for emotions, just having a rational mind, which your definition of rational seems to differ from mine, but that’s ok. However, I feel like your statement about “debunking” is the most ridiculously ignorant thing I have ever heard, lol.
So “Looking at things from “a debunking standpoint” is not an intellectual thing to do”?
Well I guess not if it means that every report of Bigfoot can’t be taken seriously and it means that you can’t hold on to your belief that Bigfoot is out there in every patch of forest big enough to sustain a creature that size. You made the comment that “If they said they saw it very clearly, six miles away, I’d at least have the curiosity to discuss it further rather than dismissing”. I would still be curious too, but if they told me they could ascertain that it was 8.5′ tall from that distance, I’m sorry, but I just can’t accept that, as a person with years of scientific experience.
So no need to bring emotions into this or get mad or be offended, we obviously just have different ways of viewing things and analyzing them and processing the information for ourselves. But regardless of what you say or think, I’m going to continue to post my opinions for others to consider just as you are free to.
Happy BF hunting DWA.
The couple sounds credible enough.
A thought: People get convicted all the time in court based on “eyewitness testimony.” If it is good enough for a court of law, why is it not good enough for scientifc inquiry?
I do understand science has different “standards”—I was just curious as always at the lack of “trust” in people’s perceptions.
The two couple’s stories seem to match.
What we need is more information out of them.
Invite them here and let us have a go at them.
I’ll put this in the hard to disprove but also equally hard to prove category.
As for the distance, if they reported seeing a bear/deer under those conditions I don’t think there’d be any argument that they saw a bear/deer.
Now what would really be ironic, if these people are simply telling the truth. Then an unforeseen in the amount of bookings take place at their hunting and fishing camp. And a hunter actually bags a BigFoot by mistake, thinking it is a bear or gets photographic evidence that is not a blobsquatch. Then we would have the proof of existence that no one could argue.
The irony would be, that they were telling the truth all along and the fact that they received an increase in business, which was unintentional and not on their agenda.
Well, who knows? Could it have been a BF or another animal? Could be! At the given distance, could it have been a bear? Could be! Who knows? This is one I would put in the category of inconclusive but interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.
I did want to comment on another misperception. Many people who do not live on the East Coast, have this idea in their mind that it is nothing but big cities and urban sprawl. When in fact, there are many wildlife sanctuaries and densely wooded areas. Anyone driving through Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, or upstate New York would realize this. But inevitably, people have this preconceived notion, that there are no places for undiscovered animals to hide. They would be sadly mistaken. I have friends in the midwest who have the same idea as many a poster here. They think there are just pockets of wilderness for a mile or two. When they visit, they are amazed. They always end up saying, it was not like I thought it was going to be. When I take them to the city, they say, this is how I imagined it.
So I wanted to clear that up for those of you who are not from the East Coast or have visited here.
One poster mentioned that many times there will be reports of a BF when they decide to build some mall in the wilderness. I could not agree with you more. One of the best BF sightings I know of, happened in Maryland. They were building a mall and there was a report of a BF. It was confirmed by normal citizens and police officers, that it was not a bear. We get an occassional black bear in that part of Maryland, but most sightings of black bear are in the northern part of the state or close to the Pennsylvania line. It was also confirmed in a subsequent sighting by a DNR officer who filed a report as an eyewitness, that this was clearly not a bear! So that mall comment made me think. And you are correct.
Anyway, hash it out. It’s interesting to me but I put this one in the inconclusive category.
gavinf and cryptidsrus and photoexpert: your responses to cliffie are so right on you leave me with no mess to clean up.
Bravo!
If you want to approach everything from a “debunking standpoint,” go join the out-crowd at JREF.
If you want intellect, this is the place.
If we go too fast for you, just ask us to slow down!
I will say something else to cliffie, though. He’s prattling on about numbers, and he gets one so very badly wrong that it’s – well, it’s far worse than our eyewitness (who could very likely be spot on).
Here it is:
“If you look at a bunch of reports and take an average, I’d bet 8.5′ is pretty close.”
It’s always good when someone broadcasts his level of knowledge on a topic. Stick to surveying, cliffster. The average – this coming to you from one who has read more reports than you probably ever will – is about a foot and a half lower, if not slightly more, than your, um, what did we call that ….ESTIMATE????
This depends – of course, although I shouldn’t say that, because you don’t know it – on whether you subtract from the database sightings of animals that seem to be juveniles (in the four to six-foot range). But the quantity of those sightings shouldn’t do more than about five inches or so to the average, I wouldn’t think.
Get educated before you come on here.
Now, our driver might be quite spot on with his guess! Cliffie thinks that they all come in over eight, or ten, or however many feet he thinks. But a number of large males have been seen; the average of those sightings alone might be closer to nine feet.
And wouldn’t it make sense that if our driver – and the OTHER three people – were so sure, at that distance, it might be one of the big buggers we’re talking about?
Yes.
Unless of course you tossed the report because the numbers you were unqualified to evaluate confused you. Just saying.
jimbo: exactly.
When it’s a known species, no nitpicking takes place.
Never mind that a deer – or a bear – would be harder to make out at the stated distance, by quite a little a bit.
When you see a deer a quarter-mile away, everyone believes you. What’s that, over 400 yards? Don’t make me pull out my calculator. Point made.
When it’s a sasquatch at 250 meters, suddenly you have to be, oh I don’t know, a surveyor or something. 😉
If we were to list all the logical fallacies committed by DWA — argumentum ad hominem being chief among them — we’d be here all night.
Well I can see that I have gotten under DWA’a skin for sure. He/she claims to be so intelligent and that I should keep my emotions in check but then resorts and stoops to the low level of calling me names (cliffie). I find it amusing also how you keep saying I should keep to surveying. I am a licensed surveyor, true, but my education, Bachelors and Masters Degree, and primary work is in engineering. But if it makes you feel intellectually superior to say I should stick to surveying, amuse yourself as much as you like bud. And I can promise there’s nothing you can say that will fly over my head if it is rational, go as fast as you like, but for God’s sake please think before you speak as you might sound like a fool otherwise.
The main point about the height at that distance is what it is, plain and simple, how could the guy say down do the decimal place 8.5′ from that far, other than just throwing a number out he knew was associated with Bigfoot. If you can’t get your little brain around that idea, I apologize for causing you so much mental distress, as that wasn’t my intention.
Well, it’s an interesting account. Those who know me here know that I do not think that sasquatch thrive in every state of the Union, or even in every habitat capable of supporting them. However, I am not adverse to the idea of an East Coast sasquatch. Animal populations can spread out, reaching into new habitats and establishing themselves over a wide range, especially if they are adaptable and resourceful. For example, although they have seen their ranges shrink, animals like the Gray Wolf (along with its subspecies and species that have branched off from it) have successfully perpetuated all over the globe. And then there are us prolific humans.
So the sighting being on the East Coast doesn’t bother me too much. What bothers me, like some others have said, is the distance involved. It seems very far to be able to make out too many accurate size distinctions. I agree with cliffhanger042002 in this respect. I’d also say that people would not question them if they said they saw a bear or deer because these animals are KNOWN TO EXIST. Of course no one is going to question it, unless it is a bear that is somewhere where it is not supposed to be. Sasquatch, on the other hand, are going to command a more critical eye, and so they should. With the amount of hoaxes out there, known bogus reports, and the unconfirmed status of this creature, I just don’t think we have the luxury of taking reports at face value in the same way as a sighting of a bear in bear country might be taken. Eyewitness reports of sasquatch have to be approached carefully in my opinion. The way things are, I think you have to kind of expect people are going to be skeptical and to expect them to accept these sightings in the same manner as a deer sighting is very unrealistic. I’d find it much more disturbing if we believed every report automatically as being Bigfoot.
DWA, let me finish. 🙂
However, despite the problems with distance and hoaxes and such, I think several things stand out here. I will list my own skeptical thoughts along with these.
1)I think the expertise that Dale Tompkins has with bears should not simply be ignored. He obviously knows a bear when he sees one and we should not discount that experience lightly. If you can trust that he knows what a bear IS, then we have to leave open that he knows what a bear ISN’T. I would expect a man with this kind of experience with bears to rationalize what he saw as such (even if he really didn’t think so), that parlay it into a sasquatch report. I do think that misidentifications occur, but not with someone with this kind of knowledge of bears. This is ot a sure reason to believe this report as genuine, but definitely something to think about.
2)Even with the distance, the movements described might be distinguishable. A true bipedal creature moves a lot different than a bear tying to lumber along on its hind legs, and I feel this could maybe be discerned even at distance. Even if the size estimates are wrong, the movements do not match up with a bear (although these could be exaggerated or imagined).
3)Another couple saw the same thing. I find it unlikely that these two would pull over some complete strangers and conspire to create a bogus sasquatch report. That two couples report the same thing is interesting to me. Then again, maybe this was planned with these people from the start.
The report itself is compelling to me for these reasons. If it is bogus, then I don’t feel it is likely from a misidentification of a bear. In my opinion, the story is either totally made up, a hoax pulled on THEM, or a real sasquatch.
See? I’m a reasonable skeptic. Alright, DWA. I’m finished. 🙂
I don’t know if any of you play golf, but someone with 20/20 vision can easily
See a pin and the flag at over 400 yds away on the green and how big is a pin about 1/2 “in diameter? And you can see your ball in the middle of the fairway at 275-300yds away.An animal that big could easily been seen and you would be able to give a pretty good description.
The guy owns a hunting cabin, he is use to seeing animals in the woods.
I am an avid hunter, and I could tell if a deer has a rack (not a spike but say a six pointer)at 250 yds away.I am not talking about catching a split second glimpse of something, but something you get a good look at it.
Somebody that spends that much time in the woods, unless you do it yourself,
You can’t understand that your eyes become very keen to animals, they have
A different look than the rest of the forest,and you can tell what animal it is, how big it is, how far its and you would be surprised how good you can get at it.
But when you see something different, your mind, in a split second, knows That something does not fit the animals your use to seeing and very rapidly starts trying to figure out what details are different and stores it in your memory.
I know many skeptics say that you cannot trust a person’s memory. but when you have a Unique experience, I believe you remember things in much greater detail
and you can recall those details for a long time.
Bad timing if you’re trying to drum up business I’d say…
And yeah, Mr. surveyor doesn’t seem able to gauge human motivation very well.
I also believe that MOST people shun ridicule, and don’t usually invite it.
Sure maybe a couple nuts out of a whole bushel will be bad; but NOT every one.
I guess I should not have believed my grandfather when he said a slender mountain lion ran across a dirt road he was walking down in Northern California one day;
Because people that say such things are ALL seeking attention and want to start sight seeing expeditions… Anyway it was probably just a raccoon he saw…and it was probably chubby and not slender at all (lol) silly grandpa’s!…good grief!
Take that tired garbage over to Ben Radford he’d probably love it and would like to show you his video of eyeballing a giant cardboard cutout (of what looked something like plumbing piping, or was that ‘sposed to be a champ neck?) on a lake.
I forgot to add to my Point 2 skeptical viewpoint above saying that the bipedal movement could be exaggeration or imagination on the part of the eyewitnesses. I wanted to add that the movement could also be that of a man, maybe one who is trying to hoax them, or wearing clothing to make them seem to be something they are not, like a ghillie suit. Then again, the guy owns hunting camps, so I think he’d know what one of those looks like as well. I think size could be mistaken for sure, and that possibility should be considered.
This is my uneducated, unprofessional opinion. Should I ask permission to have one?
I suspect what they saw was a cow or calf moose. I would also guess it was angled on the edge of the road so the full profile view was not available and walked into the brush.
At that distance it would appear black, even though the ears are quite large they would probably blend into the dark background, even leading one to believe a BF was looking at them.
I would also suspect that their encounter was for only a second or 2.
If a moose was walking away from you, at that distance, and the surroundings were dark, it’s very possible one could mistake it for something walking on 2 legs and standing 7 or 8 feet tall.
Please don’t use the ole tired cliche “they are credible witnesses”, so aren’t police officers, except maybe ones from Georgia.
I have learned in other areas of life not to take what I hear credulously.
Nonetheless, we are discussing an eyewitness account. We can only discuss the facts as they are presented, unless we are able to interview the witness.
If they say the arms were swinging like a man’s, then that makes a moose or calf identification impossible.
A bear cannot make a swinging motion akin to a man. It walks stiltingly, not with smooth motion. They say the road was about 35 feet across (yes, I know, another measurement). Do bears commonly walk 10 yards or more on their hind legs, when they are built for 4 legged locomotion?
Regarding a hoax by a 3rd party. It is always a possibility. Still, that area doesn’t appear to be overly populated. Therefore, either all the eyewitnesses are in on the hoax, or the 3rd party was waiting for someone to come along. I live in a area with several lakes, rivers and streams, somewhat similar to the area in question. You could wait a long time for someone to come along.
If, in fact, they were perpetrating a hoax, and the Tomkins aren’t involved, why haven’t we heard about another, more detailed sighting?
This is a sighting, until further notice, that I think deserves more than immediate dismissal.
mystery_man: I let you finish and I’m glad. 🙂
That is how a skeptic should sound.
zigoapex and sasquatch: indeed.
I’m finally starting to like the sound of this thread.
Now as to cliffhanger (shoot, I liked “cliffie” better, and fewer letters to boot): I’m not sure he could show less understanding of what I think if I’d posted the opposite of what I think, just for horse laughs, and he’d actually READ that. Go back, man, and try it word for word this time.
But I mean, here’s a guy who’s tossing a report that I and others have given well-reasoned arguments we should consider, for the single reason that THE GUY ESTIMATED HEIGHT! That’s one open mind. Glad it’s not mine.
And whatever is bothering you, proriter, this isn’t the place to address it. If you have some thoughts, um, why not supply them? If not, sorry I woke you.
steele79 I believe you’re under the misconception that since the Eastern US was settled first that it is more populated than the Western half. If I had to wager a guess, I’d wager the Western US is much more populated than the Eastern half. Not because of where I live, but do to the fact that there are more major cities there than here.
Also, have yopu even been to the East. As I said before there massively vast areas of forests. Its not hard to assume that something just a tad bigger than human could hide there.
Lets say I tell you “There are a group of 1,000 people living in the Rockey mountains.” Given that info, could you accurately go out and find that population immediately? No, you couldn’t. Also I forgot to mention “These people have advanced knoledge of the terrain, and will avoid any and all contact if possible.” Hmmm… yeah, real easy to find. Not to mention the fact that they have natural camoflauge and are active when you are asleep.
And whoever said they’ve avoided detection? There are hair samples that the DNA comes back as Unkown primate, Pictures, Videos, Footprints, and eyewitness accounts.
So tell me, If a human can be sentenced to death simply by ONE of what I listed above, why can’t a creature be proven real by the same standards?
swnoel: I’d go for your scenario as a possibility if I thought it was likely.
There’s a report of a guy who shot a sasquatch. Dead, with one shot. He thought – wait for it – that it was a moose he’d wounded and was tracking. It was facing away from him; the head and shoulders looked to him like the humped back and rump of a moose, seen from behind.
Now, I don’t know whether this report is real or not. You can’t make such a statement, one way or the other, about any single report. But what this guy allegedly did is what people do: he saw what he EXPECTED TO SEE.
I just don’t see any way that four people, two cars of strangers, are going to come to the same incredulous conclusion, and all agree to go public with it, from a two-second sighting of a moose. In known moose country.
If that sounds like an easy explanation to you, then you are coming from the standpoint that the sasquatch is such an implausible idea that even this is better as an explanation.
Some of us just disagree that anyone can do anything like that, and be sober enough to be driving a car. Unless of course they’re lying, in which case no animal on the road was even necessary. If they all four did that, honestly, I’m surprised they got their cars out of their driveways safely, much less survived to post this report.
I don’t know what they saw. But closing every report like this with “known animal” – without a shred of evidence that it was, and quite a bit that it wasn’t – is a good way not to find out.
And “please don’t pull out ‘credible witnesses’ again” is, well, there’s too much evidence that says that too many people who knew what they were seeing saw more than enough to make a curious person wonder. These sound, to me, like credible witnesses. To use the don’t-pull-that argument, whether one knows it or not, is to say: No they aren’t. They’re crazy. Case closed. It’s a form of denial, which never got anyone closer to finding out anything.
mystery_man: this deserves comment. It’s the paragraph of yours that starts:
“So the sighting being on the East Coast doesn’t bother me too much. …”
Nope, me neither. But that’s not it. (That’s just the locator.)
Let me finish. 😀
Of course we don’t question sightings of known animals. And of course we should question Sasquatch sightings. My point is that we shouldn’t shut them down for points of order that we would consider trivial were it a known animal. Because they are still trivial if it’s a Sasquatch.
Hear me out. 😀
If you can’t see a deer at a given distance, your report that you did should be looked at askance on that detail alone. Now you and I might not care enough to do so. A deer’s a deer. That detail – oh, it was two miles away – might just skate. But more than one of us here think that you can not only see something as big as this alleged sas at that alleged distance, but you can also have command of details that allowed you to estimate its height. I have seen such details emerge, in follow-up interviews of witnesses, more than once. People who hate to type, or to talk to someone looking for a soundbite, can gloss over stuff on the initial report – oh they’ll never believe this, let’s just get it down – that they might bring up to someone who cared enough to ask the right questions. I think that getting behind that estimate would be one of the first things I wanted to do talking to this guy. (Sorry. These four people.) If they were headed in that direction, they passed by that spot; a check of a tree in the vicinity could more than facilitate an estimate.
I never expect anyone to accept a Sasquatch sighting. Especially me. If the person I knew and trusted most in the world reported a sighting to me, I still wouldn’t have proof.
But I would ask questions.
And one thing I wouldn’t do: take a detail I might not even care about were the animal known, and flush the report on that alone.
When I see that, it’s easy to presume that the person doing it has taken a “debunking approach” (i.e., it’s all fake), and just isn’t curious enough about something that he’s pretty sure doesn’t exist.
Which I call a comfortable assumption, which all true skeptics (you most certainly included) question.
This couple say they have regular contact with bears and know what they saw is not a bear. One or two people here are saying ‘well, they run hunting lodges and this publicity is good for business.’ So presumably their (possible) motivation negates their expertise with regard to their testimony.
If two local vicars saw it we would not doubt their motives but deride their expertise with regard to their testimony. So who can we believe?
Is it good science and objectivity to discard ( or perhaps I should say biscard) the actual data in any reports because of our perceived motives on the part of witnesses? Think what we might miss!
DWA- I also do not think we should shut down questioning of these reports or throw them in the circular file just because they happen to describe a sasquatch. I agree with your “we won’t find it if we don’t look” approach. The fact is that some of these reports COULD be genuine, just as are many reports of other undiscovered, ethno known animals. I was responding mostly to the lamenting I often hear that “If it was a deer, no one would question it.” To me, that is a weak argument. People do not typically hoax or fabricate deer sightings. They are known to exist. They are common. I expect cryptozoology to dig a little deeper and do better than that kind of argument. Skeptics will jump all over statements like that, and they’d be right to do so.
I’m actually starting to doubt the idea that this could be a fabricated story because the more I think about it, the more the 250 meter distance doesn’t fit if this is made up. If they were making up a sasquatch report, why say it happened from such a distance? It could be a red herring, but I would expect a bogus report to be a little more close up and a little more spectacular. I mean, a hoaxer does it for attention, right? So it doesn’t make sense that they would give such an unimpressive proximity of 250 meters if they were trying to wow people with a sasquatch report.
As to people shying away from ridicule, well, obviously some people like stirring up attention as well. We cannot make any assumptions as to people’s motives and there are all kinds of reasons why people might hoax a sighting like this, some of which have already been mentioned here. For example, perhaps drumming up attention for the area in the wake of the Georgia Bigfoot fiasco. Also, any information that you can get on Bigfoot sightings reports, so can a hoaxer. All of the details that point to a real animal are freely available for a hoaxer to read as well. They can fake the very information that you might use to judge authenticity. Probably they wouldn’t take the time to do their homework, but they MIGHT. As long as people are willing to hoax Bigfoot reports, they have to be approached critically. I do not really think these two are intentionally trying that in this case for the reason I stated before, but I won’t pretend to know what their motivations for doing it would be if they were.
So now I am thinking that this was a hoax pulled on them, or a misidentified person who seemed bigger and stranger looking than they actually are due to mistaken size, clothing, or lighting. Or who knows? A sasquatch (although that is my last choice).
swnoel- I considered that too. It is a good idea. But again, I just feel that a hunter with this man’s experience would know that and would be able to identify a moose if it was. Also, they say it crossed the road, not that it was walking away from them. I am not sure a moose could maintain the illusion of bipedalism while crossing the road. Anyway, I appreciate your trying to come up with possible explanations.
DWA- By the way, thanks for the compliment. I try to be rational and analytical while maintaining an open mind. I try to use reasoning and common sense as much as I am able. Like you said, I also think it is important to ask questions. I just don’t always ask questions that proponents want to hear, or ask ones that assume sasquatch is real. I actually see where cliffhanger is coming from, considering that being in the field of science myself, I guess I might have a similar way of thinking and approaching things. I think a skeptical (not scofftical) approach, checking and questioning, is usually in the end helpful for science, but am always willing to consider that I could be dead wrong. Anyway, I’m glad I let you finish too. 🙂
I think one thing is worth considering that someone mentioned before. I do think when people have a unique experience, they are more likely to vividly remember it. The problem is, I think they can also sometimes embellish these things as well, although not necessarily intentionally, or in their excitement can make the story a bit more amazing than it might have actually been. I think a person is perhaps less likely to exaggerate a regular ole bear sighting than if they thought they saw something truly out the ordinary. Of course, we also have to try to get to the bottom of WHY they thought it was so spectacular, but if they are misjudging a mundane occurrence, is it possible that their mind might add details to make it fit into their impression that it is something bizzarre? Just a thought.
mystery man – I like your way of thinking and your approach, but I guess I could be biased since mine is similar, lol. But I just wanted to come back after things had cooled down a bit and clarify something, I’m not sure exactly how I got tagged as being a non-believer, but it seems like I read that in someone’s post. I am for sure a skeptic, but I have never completely thrown out the possibility of this being a sas. I certainly have my doubts as anyone can tell from my earlier threads because of certain circumstances, but I haven’t ruled it out completely as not being a legit sighting. Maybe I did too much “thinking out loud” and it got perceived that way, but I should also clarify I wasn’t just trying to “debunk” either. Sure, I have looked at it from a debunking standpoint to see what stands out, but that is just one part of the overall process. And I will also admit I referred to this site as a debunking site when I should have said “debating”. But in the end it comes down to everyone trying to find out the truth, and everyone has a different process and brings different things to light that help us all. And that was all I was trying to do with the height issue, use what I know to assist in getting closer to the truth, as much as that can be done anyway, obviously that won’t be accomplished though as long as this (above info) is all we have to go on.
DWA – I was just posting my opinion on a single aspect of this subject and it seemed to me like you came at me with guns blazing. Like I said, just thinking out loud and not necessarily posting about every aspect of this sighting or every single thought in my head, just what I felt like I could offer up based on my experience. I just said that this account was suspect to me, not that these people were lying, however I have also considered that as well. Go back and read my first post, I did in fact say they were other things that were believable.
Anyway, I’ll always consider what you and others have to say in the matter regardless if my opinions differ. If I didn’t want to consider what others thought I wouldn’t be reading these posts and commenting. And despite all that’s been said, trying to insult each other, etc. I’m all about just burying the hatchet and letting go of any hard feelings that might exist. There are none on my part with anyone here, and I have no problems with people having differing opinions, I just don’t feel like an attack or insulting approach is necessary to convey differing opinions. I did say some things that could be insulting after I felt I was being targeted with insults, but I apologize for that and would much rather proceed forward with healthy debate.
And just to make it clear, I was also not in any way trying to be “high and mighty” or imply that myself or my opinion is better than anyone else’s when I said I was giving a professional/educated opinion, just trying to give some background on myself and maybe let others know how I was drawing my conclusions.
Cliffhanger- I like your way of thinking too. Your stance on the sasquatch phenomenon is pretty much exactly the same as my own. I also think your height statements were very relevant and rational, and I’m not sure why they got jumped on so readily. I guess tensions can run high on this subject at times, and things can get blown out of proportion a bit. We occasionally lock antlers around here, but usually it is in useful debate, with a shared desire to get to the truth. Attacks and insults most definitely detract from that goal, and it disappoints me when that happens here. I’m happy that you are able to apologize for that, I just hope you don’t feel that you have to apologize for your opinions. They are solid as far as I’m concerned. Another thing I can sympathize with is your sharing of your background. I also sometimes share my own scientific experience and background here and maybe that can be misconstrued as acting “high and mighty”, so I totally understand your sentiments on that. I never mean it to sound like that, nor am I trying to play an expert card.
Anyway, I think it is very big of you to be able to say that you can bury the hatchet, and thank you for expressing your feelings on the matter.
It is always easy to tell when people are city-slickers and don’t spend a great deal of time in the wilds or, if they do, only hunt in a relatively small area.
Let’s see. This report is by people who have been involved in the hunting industry for over 20 years and very easily could be hunters themselves. If not hunters then they probably have done some guiding since they do own several hunting camps. This was in New Brunswick. I do believe they have a sizable moose population. If I remember correctly a full-grown bull moose stands close to 6′ tall at the shoulder, maybe a bit more, and a cow just slightly less. Anybody who has spent a great amount of time hunting learns various tricks to estimate distances, after-all eyes and brains were around long before rangefinders. Not only would they have a pretty good idea of how big a moose looks at various distances they also had the experience gained from hunting bears and probably can judge sizes from that knowledge also.
A person with relatively good eye sight is going to easily be able to identify shapes at anything up to at least 400 meters, especially if it is moving. At 250 meters, which is probably an approximation, it is certainly going to be possible to tell if a moving object is a moose, man or bear; btw, while bears can walk on their hind legs about the only time they do in the wild is when they assume a threat posture, it is only in circuses where they spend much time erect. Which means that if something crosses the road in front of you in a normal bipedal walk it is almost certainly NOT a bear. It also is not a moose because they have four legs which are always on the ground. If it is bipedal and looks as if it is about as tall as a bull moose’s antlers then it is either a very lost NBA basketball player or something else.
Btw, one quick way to judge height is by judging the length of one’s stride. If you know the road is about 35′ wide and what you are watching crosses it in only 4 or five strides you can figure it is one very tall being. The normal walking stride of an average 6′ tall man is right in the neighborhood of 3′ – 3.5′ which means it would take something in the area of 10 strides to cover 35′. Now since they said this figure crossed the road in 3 or 4 steps with its arms swinging like a person walking, obviously it was not running, that means it had to be, at the very least, 7′ tall and probably much taller.
This sighting, for whatever reason, has led to one of the more spirited debates in a while.
I for one was glad to see it. It sharpens our minds to really look at all angles.
As for arguing, well, all’s well that ends well.
That’s why this site rocks!
mystery_man – Thanks for the post and support, some kind words at this point are refreshing, lol. Looks like Loren has been busy since my last visit so I’m gonna check out the other threads since there’s no new info on this one yet.
DWA – you can just call me cliff, that’s even shorter than “cliffie” and at my age just sounds too juvenile, lol. But anyway, no hard feelings.
Since this couple has been so willing to put the information out there as well as their names and picture, the first thing I would like to see done after reading this report is to have someone go with them to the location and actually measure the distance. People mis judge distance all the time.
Hunters are particularly prone to talk about a 300 yard shot that dropped an elk in one shot, but when the story gets checked out it is found that it was more like 125 yards, which is still a good shot.
Aren’t there at least some BF enthusiasts near there that could do this?
It would have been nice to also have the witnesses stop at the location and look for signs that might have been left behind by the reported sas. Some footprints, hair, etc. or a reason why they didn’t stop to check it out. Maybe they were afraid the sas would double back to give them a nice Jack Link’s style beatdown? I would guess fear would be the reason they didn’t report having went to location of the sighting and checking the side of the road. I’m not familiar with that particular area, but usually on rural roads running through wooded areas you’ll find that off the edge of pavement you’ll have about 4-6 feet of soft, dirt shoulder, and then a v-ditch or flatbottom drt, sod ditch for drainage that is usually fairly soft unless they haven’t had much rain in the past. And if there was rain you would have a soft area that would be fairly free of debris, having been washed clean by stormwater drainage. But that’s just speculation on my part, not being familiar with the area, but around here that is a typical roadway section in wooded areas, especially if a state DOT or county maintained road. I would just expect a sighting like that to yield some physical evidence, but there is of course the “too scared to stop and check” explanation.
Whoa. This sounds nice around here now! Much better.
(I just got back from a backpacking trip. Really awful water, and the necessity to drink same, were involved. A mood lifter is a good thing. At least now I’ll find out whether my water puro techniques work.)
My apologies too. I just think that people who’ve seen something that might exist…well, they might have seen it, and their stories need to be considered in their entirety, and followed up when they sound like, well, this person might have seen this. When folks don’t follow up with detailed questioning of every aspect of a witness’s story, research into the matter suffers. I get a bit impatient when I see that happening, and I think it happens too often. And yeah, I’m not a nice guy then. Sorry for that.
If the distance matter seems off, I’d want to find out why the witness came up with the estimate. When we do the “nobody complains when it’s a deer,” it’s by way of pointing out how insignificant the detail is IF OTHER ASPECTS OF THE REPORT ARE COMPELLING, as a number of the aspects of this one seem to be. To me, that estimate is something I’d want to talk about. But I can forgive a bad estimate if other aspects of the story hold together.
Really, though, it’s just another report unless it’s followed up. As are they all.
And cliff works for me. 🙂
Well, one thing about the distance is that is really didn’t have to be a guess at all. Since they were in their vehicle, with an odometer and likely a “trip meter” they could have set the trip meter or taken an odometer reading at the spot of the sighting then another at the sas road crossing…However I do realize that probably didn’t seem important at the time with all the excitment, and I think it’s safe to assume they didn’t do that or we would have gotten the distance in 10ths of a mile rather than metric. And I would have been much less critical about the height had they given a known physical reference, road sign for example, near the sas used to approximate the height….Well, it would have been nice anyway, but so would a picture, so just beating a dead horse here…
But glad to hear someone got to get out and enjoy the weekend, and the purification must have worked since your up to posting DWA, no disentary lol…..
cliff
Hey, DWA. Yeah, I was wondering where you had gotten off too. Hope the water didn’t get the best of you there. 🙂 Good to see that you are being a good sport about this whole debate too. You know I agree with you that many of these reports bear follow up. I also agree that some inconsistencies are forgivable if other aspects of the report are solid and compelling.
cliffhanger- I also get a little frustrated when sightings don’t turn up any physical evidence. However, I can understand how the circumstances might prevent that. I know if I saw an “8.5” foot tall sasquatch (or even if I just thought I did, as the case may be), I wouldn’t be too keen on getting out of the car and snooping around. Then again, these two claim they stopped to ask the ones behind them if they had seen the same thing, so it does seem a bit odd that they wouldn’t think to go look for physical evidence. Maybe in all of the excitement, it slipped their minds or they just didn’t think it was important to do so.
Anyway, I do appreciate it when sightings reports turn up physical evidence of some kind to corroborate them. It does lend a bit more credence to them than a report that exists in a vacuum.
mystery_man – I agree with that 100%, maybe next time around we’ll get a report with all the fixins, lol, then we’ll really have a debate on our hands. More evidence, more to debate!!
cliff