@sawyerandsand
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It wasn’t a full episode, that’s why you’re having trouble finding it. Here it is:
There was an episode of Into the Fray (episode 308) where the guest talked about using the app and having an encounter. Around 27-30 mins into the episode.
@auggie Thanks for your response. I did relisten and the area I found seemed like a very good match. The beaches I found that you could access from the trail you see pictured were well hidden from the road and about a half mile to a mile down the path as described by Claire. It had a very creepy feeling to it, but that may have just been my knowledge of the story and me assigning a spookiness that might not otherwise be there. Most of the other areas to pull off were more heavily populated by tourists, while this one was completely empty. It was also one of the first areas you’d come to driving south in the direction she described she was coming from (Monterey/Carmel area) once you’ve passed the more heavily populated/touristy beach paths around Big Sur.
William, I totally agree with you.
They just posted a roundtable with Barton Nunnelly where they went into even more detail and he answered more questions.
They’ve taken the video off private for anyone who missed it the first time and wanted to watch:
@Debbie well, good news. I happened to download the video before it was put on private so I suppose I could upload it to something like wetransfer and post or send you a link so you’d have an opportunity to download it and watch it if you’d like.While I can’t speak for any of the parties involved, my guess would be that the organization that was willing to actually spend money producing a larger scale investigation and production into and about the events might selfishly want to keep more and more people from finding out about this witness and his story through this YouTube channel so that 1) other people cant try to do their own production or interviews with him and dilute this investment into whatever investigation or production they’re doing by having multiple videos about the story come out. And 2) their production would be able to come out as more of an exclusive on the topic…That would be one reason they could have asked.
Another, if they’re actually honest people conducting a serious investigation, would be they want less people being capable of learning the details of this story by watching the video so that when they interview people about events there is less opportunity that someone could have watched the video and then come forward and be capable of lying in order to provide corroborating details. In other words, there’d be less opportunity to tamper with the investigation.
But who really knows. Let me know if you’d like me to send via wetransfer
Yes. They’re going to make it private after tonight. They said they were asked by this larger organization to give them some time to do a full investigation and report. They say they’re going to make it public again after 2 months or so when whoever they’re talking about will be finishing and releasing their findings.
Anyone who’d like to hear the interview should listen today. The story appears to be getting a lot of attention and apparently an organization is going to be doing a larger scale investigation and expose and as a courtesy these guys have agreed to temporarily make the video private to give this organization the opportunity to investigate and report it on a bigger scale. So they are giving the video about 12 hours and then making it private for the next few months until this larger story comes out. They just released a new video explaining everything.
Right, it’s a story that’s been around for a while and has really become more of a legend from the lack of reporting and first hand information surrounding it. Until now there’s been no actual eye witnesses who have come forward. It’s easy to roll eyes and write this off as bs, but then that’s the case with any eye witness account. This guy is naming names and giving a lot of details and seems more than willing to answer questions or stand up to anyone who challenges the legitimacy of his claims with alternate facts. That’s generally not how someone who is lying tends to act. And if the legend is true, then the details he’s giving actually start to explain a lot of things that didn’t make sense before. For example, it’s hard to understand how a family of 4 could be slaughtered and go missing without any real coverage of it in the news or surviving family members speaking out, but the claim by this witness that they were recently excommunicated from the Amish community starts to at the very least make that aspect of the story somewhat more palatable. That’s really one of the only ways that could actually make sense on some level. The other thing is this guy is literally naming names, and giving exact dates and very specific details. That’s just not something that makes sense to do if you’re lying. It makes it much easier for your story to start falling apart when you’re providing the level of detail this man does. He could have just as easily said he was going to not use the victims’ actual names to protect their identities. He’s not hiding behind stuff like that. I’m not saying there’s no way this isn’t true…just pointing out that if he’s lying, he’s not acting like a liar. And personally, I feel like it’s important to give eye witnesses like the ones on this show the benefit of the doubt and judge their accounts on the way they conduct themselves during their interviews. I can understand why this is hard for you to believe. As I said when I posted it, I was extremely skeptical when I first heard that after all these years there was suddenly an eyewitness and survivor of this attack. But having listened to his interview more than once, I’m compelled to believe he’s telling the truth. But who knows 🙂
I can understand how you’d feel that way about the intro. That’s just the way these guys talk about everything. I think they’re good people trying to be as respectful to the guest as possible while allowing for the possibility that they have no way of vetting him. But I’d just suggest if you feel that way to simply advance the video a few minutes past the intro. I think you’ll find the guest and his story extremely compelling.
