Dr. Matthew Johnson's Encounter

[bipedalist]

The guy's a professional observer of behavior.....enough said.

[JDL]

I believe his story because of its detail and consistency. I understand his terror during the encounter. I understand his sense of inadequacy in what he perceived to be a threatening situation in which his wife and children were at risk. I can't fault his actions at the time of the encounter. But for Pete's sake....it's been ten years. Man up. Somebody find this guy a psychologist.

[Guest]

Maybe it's because I'm more matter of fact about these things. The guy said he saw a sasquatch. Plenty of reliable people "with something to lose" also claim they've seen a sasquatch. To me, it's just not some golden encounter that trumps most others.

Maybe it's also because I also have a Ph.D., so to me Johnson is just another "colleague" with a doctorate. So I guess I wouldn't expect the BF community to give any future sighting of mine some special significance just because of my job title.

If you have a spontaneous emotional response in the retelling of your sighting, then I'll give it more significance than most. The fact that you have a Ph.D. is only relevant if that Ph.D. is related to zoology or anthropology, IMO. I will say that I think that the risk factor is a bit higher for someone who is in the field of treating people with psychological disorders.

[Guest Yeti1974]

I'm not saying it's not a cool sighting. I just think there's an inherent danger in placing too much emphasis on it. You give the "CSI-cops" something to aim at, and when they do their inevitable takedown of one or two prominent pieces of evidence, they consider Bigfoot debunked. I feel it's best to deny them the pleasure.

[Guest Thepattywagon]

PHD or no, he wasn't the only witness to strangeness that day, which is why I think this might be a credible report. His wife witnessed every thing he did, short of actually seeing the creature. And I'll bet the only reason he was able to spot it was that it didn't notice he had left the group, because it was fixated on the other family members.

Two witnesses to everything but the actual sighting means they'd both have to be lying, which is less likely.

In my opinion.

[Guest]

I'm not saying it's not a cool sighting. I just think there's an inherent danger in placing too much emphasis on it. You give the "CSI-cops" something to aim at, and when they do their inevitable takedown of one or two prominent pieces of evidence, they consider Bigfoot debunked. I feel it's best to deny them the pleasure.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that I find it compelling and credible doesn't mean I expect it to hold up to scrutiny by skeptics. I think it's fair to examine the story and draw your own conclusion. I don't think the answer is to ignore these types of eyewitness accounts because skeptics might scoff.

[Boris Khan]

Having met Johnson, it's even more interesting hearing the story in person. He was/is active in a group here called Southern Oregon Bigfoot Society and has claimed to have had a second encounter recently but you'll have to look it up to read it. As for his family speaking out and his career... unfortunately for Dr Johnson, much has changed in his private life and I don't feel at liberty to discuss it but it is mentioned in the article regarding his second encounter. Here's a link from the local paper.

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101230/NEWS/12300318&cid=sitesearch

[Guest]

I'm not saying it's not a cool sighting. I just think there's an inherent danger in placing too much emphasis on it. You give the "CSI-cops" something to aim at, and when they do their inevitable takedown of one or two prominent pieces of evidence, they consider Bigfoot debunked. I feel it's best to deny them the pleasure.

Yeti, I'm with you. Even though my first reaction was to believe the story, we see idiots everyday on reality TV just looking for attention. I won't put Mr. Johnson in this category, but it was either a life changing experience or a call for attention.

P.S. Thank You Sasquatch for that great footage from 2002.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Squatchaholic

[Guest rolando]

I agree with Yeti1974. I don't see why this specific story is more compelling than many others.

[Guest]

Illogically I'll admit, I am inclined in the direction of sympathy toward Dr. Johnson, and of tending toward believing him re encountering Bigfoot; by an item proceding from the "British polymath" Stephen Fry, in his "book of his television series" about his travels through the USA. In this item, concurrently with an interview by Fry of Dr. Johnson, the author viciously "rubbishes" Johnson and, by extension, everyone who has an interest in Bigfoot or is open to the idea that the creature might exist -- to the point of remarking that such people should not be allowed to breed. One can hold the opinion that there is no Bigfoot, and that all who claim encounters are deluded or engaging in deliberate falsehood, without descending to "trash talking" of that kind. I have disliked Fry ever since.

[BobbyO]

Illogically I'll admit, I am inclined in the direction of sympathy toward Dr. Johnson, and of tending toward believing him re encountering Bigfoot; by an item proceding from the "British polymath" Stephen Fry, in his "book of his television series" about his travels through the USA. In this item, concurrently with an interview by Fry of Dr. Johnson, the author viciously "rubbishes" Johnson and, by extension, everyone who has an interest in Bigfoot or is open to the idea that the creature might exist -- to the point of remarking that such people should not be allowed to breed. One can hold the opinion that there is no Bigfoot, and that all who claim encounters are deluded or engaging in deliberate falsehood, without descending to "trash talking" of that kind. I have disliked Fry ever since.

& people wonder why i try to desperately hide my interest in BF so much ( this Forum aside ) let alone heaven forbid telling people i've seen one, being English..

Edited November 4, 2011 by BobbyO

[Guest Strick]

Illogically I'll admit, I am inclined in the direction of sympathy toward Dr. Johnson, and of tending toward believing him re encountering Bigfoot; by an item proceding from the "British polymath" Stephen Fry, in his "book of his television series" about his travels through the USA. In this item, concurrently with an interview by Fry of Dr. Johnson, the author viciously "rubbishes" Johnson and, by extension, everyone who has an interest in Bigfoot or is open to the idea that the creature might exist -- to the point of remarking that such people should not be allowed to breed. One can hold the opinion that there is no Bigfoot, and that all who claim encounters are deluded or engaging in deliberate falsehood, without descending to "trash talking" of that kind. I have disliked Fry ever since.

Yes, I saw that episode and was surprised that Stephen Fry was so harsh on Johnson in particular and Bigfooting in general. This contrasts with the way in which he usually seems to go out of his way to be extra-nice to everyone else.

Britain is very different to the USA and the sceptical, rational, evolutionary approach as demonstrated by thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Philip Pullman and Fry is very much the dominant ideology. So much so that one of the Pope's advisers allegedly let slip that the Pontiff was was nervous about his trip to Britain last year because it is the home of the: "New militant Atheism".

That said, I am also not impressed by Johnson's account of his sighting. For a grown man he seems to be able to switch on the waterworks right on cue every time he recounts his sighting. For me this is more testament to his acting abilities that the authenticity of his encounter.

[Guest Dr. Boogie]

Dr.Johnson certainly strikes me as somebody with emotional scars. Look at how his life has reportedly deteriorated since his encounter, marriage breakdown, removal of his counselling license, brain injury. There appears to be a pattern of escalating instability in both his professional and personal life. For me the question is are these emotional scars a result of a traumatic encounter or was the whole thing a result of some kind of emerging psychological condition?

I must admit that when the incident was first reported I attached a lot of credibility to it, probably I was swayed by his credentials and emotional reaction or it might have just been a 'social proof' thing where I was impressed by the fact that the TV crews and newspapers had decided that it was worthy of attention.

As for the subsequent emerging stories about brain injury and grabbing Bigfoot's finger from the inside of his tent; I find it all harder to believe than the story of his first encounter. As I said before, if the linked article is truthful then it appears as if Dr. Johnson has issues in his life but I personally wonder if they are a symptom or the cause? I don't know enough to make that judgement.

[Guest]

For those who think that a psychologist cannot be just as susceptible to an emotional stress disorder as anyone else, you do realize that oncologists occasionally die from cancer and that cardiologists have heart attacks?

[steenburg]

Dr. Johnson told me his story and at the time I did not feel that this was someone making something up or seeking attention. Though in the following months I had heard that he was interested in talking to other eye witnesses about their Sasquatch encounters to do a sort of study as it pertains to his profession. I don't know if he ever followed up on such a plan. The biggest problem with his story when it first came out in the media was circumstances not his fault. Reporters were just taking notes so a couple of different versions as to the details of his encounter were published. One If I remember incorrectly stated that his wife and kids saw the creature to. In fact they didn't. Now all of you know as well as I when dealing with reporters that there are going to be misquotes and mistakes coming especially when the reporter is not recording anything but simply writing down notes. also this program. "In Search Of" seemed to me to have an agenda of it's own. trying to make the Sasquatch out to be some man eating monster that's going to get you. They kept asking over and over about attacks and things and seemed frustrated when all such stories were from the distant past. In fact they seemed to have edited part of what I said to fit this agenda. In fact as I recall I said that according to First nation, (Canadian term for native Americans) stories in the past the Sasquatch was a creature to avoid and dread. But that's not how the final cut was released. I think the main doubts about Dr. Johnson's story was the fact that the publicity at the time it happened was full misquotes, and contradictory statements published by different people. People caught on to these and looked at Dr. Johnson rather than the reporters whom did the quick story route.

Thomas Steenburg