Comments on: New BC Sasquatch Sighting

By: jplunkett

jplunkett — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:26:58 +0000

Ok number one, no one can be sure of anything on the footprint because no one has said the conditions of the ground or the weather, plus the fact that you cannot tell the size of the print. Although i do allot of bigfoot hunting and i have seen tracks that look like that where the ground is very firm, and sometimes you do only see one print just because that spot was softer than the rest of the area. Number 2, no one can say whether someone is being truthful or not, not that im saying this story is fake. I am just saying that some people can tell good stories, so you never know. Number 3 I agree with Spinach Village, its gonna take someone with allot of guts to go out there and actually prove them to be real, I know they exsist.

By: cliffhanger042002

cliffhanger042002 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:33:58 +0000

HOOSIERHUNTER - I agree that whoever took the photo should have dropped something down beside the alleged footprint prior to shooting the photo. A 1 dollar bill would have sufficed. Also, not saying this guy isn’t a good investigator because I don’t know him, but an investigator going out to look at the area of a sas sighting should carry a standard ruler or something for the specific purpose of scaling photos for reference. Then again maybe he did and that pic is just not shown, who knows.

By: Spinach Village

Spinach Village — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:31:41 +0000

Well, if mainstream scientists weren’t so scared we would be closer to solving this phenomenon. I love it and I think that they do exist

By: HOOSIERHUNTER

HOOSIERHUNTER — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:35:59 +0000

Quite frankly, that footprint doesn’t look deep enough for something as big and heavy as a sas. I’m not sure it even is a footprint. Looks a little like it was made by a shoe if anything at all.
Is there any info on the size of the print? How long was the print there before it was noticed? Has it rained since the print was thought to have been made? It just looks too shallow to me and not well defined for the kind of mud it was made in.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:24:59 +0000

I’ll second what Cliffhanger 042002 said. The eyewitness sounded very believable. The manner in which she told the tale made it sound credible. I know that don’t mean diddly to most here, but I’ll go ahead and say my gut tells me “Yes.”

By: cliffhanger042002

cliffhanger042002 — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:36:34 +0000

Well, it’s hard to be satisfied with an eyewitness account no matter how much info they give, you’ll always want more, a personal experience or live/dead (preferrably alive) specimen is what it’s going to take to convince most, including me. But it’s still a pretty good account, much better than the last one (Black Sasquatch) as far as I’m concerned. There was an investigator that went out to take a look at the area, and it sounds like he made a great effort to verify her sighting. If he’s 6 foot tall and he stood in the same area as the sas and she could only see the top of his (investigator’s) head, but says she saw the sas from the chest up, that’s pretty compelling evidence. She also got a good enough look to describe with pretty good detail, so for me that kinda rules out confusion with a known animal. I can’t tell much about the footprint photo myself, other than a rough outline, but I can’t rule it out either. There’s really not much I can pick on or throw out based on what I’m reading. I guess there is always the possibility of a hoaxster, but no evidence of that in this report. Hopefully we can look forward to more evidence coming out of this area in the future.

By: korollocke

korollocke — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:19:20 +0000

lot’s of great “sightings, but nothing concrete and nothing but the usual stories of what they think they saw. After georgia i need a bit more than “reliable” eye witness accounts to satisfy.

By: korollocke

korollocke — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:16:40 +0000

Sorry to say but thats not a foot print, if it were wouldn’t there have been more. it’s just to obscure to make out. It is a foot print if you really want to see it as one though.