|
Post by ag47 on Sept 1, 2017 19:10:28 GMT
That's a lethal combination for sure.
|
|
|
Post by whitefeather on Sept 3, 2017 14:17:10 GMT
Hey Guys,
I'd like to hear a synopsis of your thoughts on Vic's most recent guest (episode 163).
On one hand it would be nice to hear what you have to say before sharing my own thoughts, but on the other, I want to afford you the opportunity to critique my impressions.
There are several things I find troubling, I'll list them as concisely as I can.
1. She states that the creature was large enough to darken the cars interior, presumably placing the sun directly behind it, but is still able to observe that the nostrils are flaring and that it's teeth are wet with saliva.
2. It remained standing on the road in front of her car for between 30 seconds and two minutes during the daytime.
3. Repeating several times how traumatic the encounter was, she still noticed details as minute as a variation in color on the underside of it's claws.
4. Despite the incident occurring the same day as the interview, when her son's encounter is mentioned she quickly deviates to an earlier incident and reiterates that she observed white facial fur on that occasion, seemingly validating her son's report.
5. She provides an exorbitant number of details, a behavior people commonly engage in when they are being untruthful.
Those are the high points anyway. Did you get similar impressions or am I being too critical in my analysis?
|
|
|
Post by ag47 on Sept 3, 2017 18:00:45 GMT
I have yet to listen to it. I'm behind on taking in Vic's show. I'll give that one a listen.
|
|
|
Post by prairiewildman on Sept 3, 2017 23:09:09 GMT
I haven't listened to it yet either & don't know the details. But one thing I will say about encounters is that after a while minute details do start to come back to you, especially if the encounter was traumatic. My Sasquatch sighting wasn't overly scary, but I can remember details that I never would have even considered looking for at the time.
Either that or she is just a good story teller...
|
|
|
Post by Wolf's rain on Sept 4, 2017 0:42:17 GMT
Hey Guys, I'd like to hear a synopsis of your thoughts on Vic's most recent guest (episode 163). On one hand it would be nice to hear what you have to say before sharing my own thoughts, but on the other, I want to afford you the opportunity to critique my impressions. There are several things I find troubling, I'll list them as concisely as I can. 1. She states that the creature was large enough to darken the cars interior, presumably placing the sun directly behind it, but is still able to observe that the nostrils are flaring and that it's teeth are wet with saliva. 2. It remained standing on the road in front of her car for between 30 seconds and two minutes during the daytime. 3. Repeating several times how traumatic the encounter was, she still noticed details as minute as a variation in color on the underside of it's claws. 4. Despite the incident occurring the same day as the interview, when her son's encounter is mentioned she quickly deviates to an earlier incident and reiterates that she observed white facial fur on that occasion, seemingly validating her son's report. 5. She provides an exorbitant number of details, a behavior people commonly engage in when they are being untruthful. Those are the high points anyway. Did you get similar impressions or am I being too critical in my analysis? Hello Whitefeather, Wolf's rain here. I have listened to Vic's new episode but if you want my thoughts on the lady's interview and encounter you got to give me sometime to play the episode again and to get my thought in order before I can tell you what I think of it. Plus some time to myself to watch the episode because I can tell you what I think because I got a lot of stuff to do on my plate and I don't always have the time to relisten to a dogman episode.
|
|
|
Post by whitefeather on Sept 4, 2017 3:21:38 GMT
Thanks Everyone,
Please understand that I am NOT trying to troll this thread. I genuinely believe there is a possibility they exist, however I do not accept every account I hear as the gospel truth. I've mentioned to AG47 that in my opinion more than 90% of reports are honest misidentifications with the occasional hoax thrown in. I've also listened to reports I believe are absolutely accurate and truthful.
In this case I was wondering if it seemed to good to be true, with multiple sightings by two family members over a span of many years and still no empirical evidence.
|
|
|
Post by prairiewildman on Sept 4, 2017 21:55:55 GMT
Never thought you were, Whitefeather.
Its good to hold a healthy amount of skepticism when dealing with claims such as these. I NEVER believe someone immediately. I check into the report, investigate the area, or at least compare the report to others from the same area, even going so far as to ask other researchers if they have received a report like this.
I listened to the episode you spoke of, and I would have to concur that it does seem to be too good to be true. Its interesting, but not sure if I believe all of it. There may be some truth to the incident, but to me it seems as if it was embellished to make it sound more fantastic. Hoaxers do this to make their stories sound better, to get more attention. Unfortunately for them, researchers & investigators usually see through this & it proves to be the thing that destroys their story in the end.
|
|
|
Post by whitefeather on Sept 5, 2017 12:57:07 GMT
Prairiewildman,
That's exactly the impression I got.
I made the disclaimer about trolling because some people choose to accept every report uncritically. While I don't agree with this approach, I don't want anything I say to be misconstrued as a value judgement or attack on personal viewpoints.
|
|
|
Post by prairiewildman on Sept 5, 2017 18:21:12 GMT
Oh, I know exactly what you mean.
I have met people over the many years I have been doing this that believe everything that someone claims & investigate afterwards. I prefer to listen to what people have to say, consider it, investigate the claims, then make my decision on whether I believe it or not.
There are too many 'research' groups out there that post every report they receive as if they were totally true, even when some of them scream hoax. This lessens the group's credibility, in my mind at least.
|
|
|
Post by ag47 on Sept 6, 2017 2:40:34 GMT
Do any of you remember which episode it was on Vic's show where a former Marine tells of his dogman encounter he had while on guard duty?
|
|
|
Post by prairiewildman on Sept 6, 2017 3:43:27 GMT
No, I haven't heard that one yet. I am going through them, usually a couple a day, but I still have a lot of them to listen to from the numbers on the episodes.
|
|
|
Post by whitefeather on Sept 6, 2017 14:23:51 GMT
I remember listening to that episode, but not what number it was.
The episode that sticks with me the most is the one where the deputy sheriff answers a prowler call at a rural property. Because of my background I can easily put myself in his shoes. Expecting to encounter a bear, at worst, he ends up finding a creature that 'just shouldn't be there'. What he observes is so out of the box, that he doesn't have any confidence that he can stop it with his shotgun.
There are subtle factors at play here that someone without LE experience might not realize. He's been trained to immediately control the scene, which he's utterly unable to do. If he talks to another officer about the encounter his credibility is destroyed, the same thing could happen if he admits it to the reporting person. After all, Boogymen don't exist in the real world.
He goes on to describe a little of how traumatic it is to feel a responsibility to protect these people, while at the same time knowing he isn't able to. From personal experience I can tell you that the guilt will be with him for the rest of his life. Adding to that, he can't ask for help from the people he depends on the most, other cops. The only choice he's left with is to just live with it.
Without any resolution, he will never be able to forget it, and it will eat at him every day.
I guess the reason I find this case compelling is that he accurately describes, in detail, exactly how any cop would feel and act. JMHO
AG47, Since you haven't responded to my PM I won't mention it again.
|
|
|
Post by ag47 on Sept 6, 2017 17:13:29 GMT
Whitefeather, I remember the one about the deputy. I also felt it seemed genuine.
If any of you come across that one with the former Marine, let me know what episode it was, and also take note of what he states he was armed with (something ridiculous which stood out like a red flag to me).
I couldn't get in here yesterday. It said the site was down.
|
|
|
Post by prairiewildman on Sept 6, 2017 18:19:10 GMT
When I was younger (early 20s), I was a Search and Rescue Technician in Jasper National Park, in Alberta Canada. Once when out on a standard training run, myself and two other SAR Techs watched as a Sasquatch walked across an old hydro line cut, about 170-180 feet in front of us. I am saying this in response to the comment Whitefeather made about the LEO not being able to say anything for fear of having his credibility destroyed. The three of us were in shock, and later on in the day we realized that this was our secret, that we could not spread this around to the other Techs, for fear of ridicule, or at worst Parks Canada getting rid of us.
It was at first exhilarating (and kind of scary) & at the same time disappointing, knowing that we couldn't say anything about our experience to anyone. So we didn't, at least to anyone we dealt with professionally. I haven't spoken to either of the two Techs who were with me at the time of the sighting in almost 20 years, when we left Jasper we just didn't keep in contact.
Just wanted to say that I know how it feels to be self-muzzled & how difficult it is.
|
|
|
Post by whitefeather on Sept 15, 2017 3:15:11 GMT
That mindset of not talking about anything that could damage credibility is firmly entrenched among LEO's and some other professional groups.
I have to wonder if we never hear from some of the best possible witnesses because of it.
|
|