cliff

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.

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

(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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.