I think this is due to the fact that this seems less meant to be read as a proper report but more as a detailed account of the sightings and the whole emotional experience surrounding it. More like a story for the majority of readers not interested in just the bare bones like we’re used to, which is fine.

I think it’s a great report though, thanks for sharing!

1) I believe that the more detail is in the report the more likely it is to be accurate. As Todd says: don’t ask him what he did yesterday. But this day didn’t stick because he saw a bear. The reports that make me go hmmmm the most are invariably - also, this isn’t what necessarily distinguishes them, but it seems always there - the ones with the most detail; the ones that have me smelling hoax from the git-go seem - also, this isn’t how I judge them, it’s just a consistent feature of them - to have very little detail.

2) I could never tell a witness to his face, even his cyberface, that he was lying. I mean, what’s my evidence? Was I there? That’s a plainly irrational presumption.

OK, a third thing.

3) Todd, Sergio, MultipleEncounters, rayrich et al - doesn’t it seem at least a little surreal to engage in discussions like this? I mean, knowing for sure?

It just struck me that all the details about the explosives etc made me believe it less, and i can’t really say why- it just seemed too self-conscious a way of trying to seem reliable a witness (in fact Todd says that he gave all the details so that he would seem a reliable witness). I know that is really unfair, because we are always criticizing reports as unreliable when they don’t provide background details. but it just seemed rather contrived to me.

While all the details of explosives et al add credibility that the witness really is an army man, and really was at the site doing what he said- what it doesn’t really do is add anything to the credibility of the report. In fact, in my opinion it really just distracts from the actual report. And when we strip out all the extraneous stuff here do we really have as great a report as everyone seems to think-

Todd hears a ‘whoop’, and later he sees three figures several hundred metres away while traveling very fast down a bumpy track, with his view often partially obscured.

Interesting, but hardly the greatest report ever.

Also, one thing struck me from the account, which perhaps Todd could explain-

While setting the explosives, Todd hears the ‘whoop’ which he immediately thinks is one of his men messing about- but he looks over, and sees that it isn’t; they are all working quietly at their tasks. But that’s it. he carries on and then sets off the explosives.

Now I don’t know anything about army procedure, but if you are laying explosives and you think you here someone shouting, don’t you at least check that some hiker/hunter/drunken teenage idiot hasn’t wandered into the danger area? I think i would.

Sorry, that all sounds very negative.

Your integrity shines thru in your comments and further backs you up. While some wish they had never had an experience such as this I can tell that you appreciate your brush with BF no matter the consequence.

I was thinking of your story last night as I watched Survivorman (deep in the swamps of GA) and wondered what he might run into all alone in that dark swamp.

All the best to you!

My apologies to Neiss but I don’t believe his story for a second. A few points-

Do military personnel working with heavy explosives goof off very often?

Three words: ‘Hey! What’s that?’

I didn’t stop the convoy as a bomb was about to go off but I did go running back to try and get another look.

Still, fun story. Bigfootery has lots of them. Reliable evidence? Nope.

You’re a lucky guy.