You are mixing apples and oranges. There is a HUUUUUUGE difference between an eyewitness to a crime identifying a person as the perpetrator of the crime when the eyewitness saw a person commit the crime under who knows what conditions with an eyewitness seeing an animal under ideal conditions and identifying it as an animal that bears no resemblance to any known animal. After all, there are many people who fit the description of the perpetrator of every crime who are innocent so the potential for misidentification is great. We should know since we are twins and are often mistaken for each other. THAT DOG WON'T HUNT111

Even cryptozoologists would agree:

As Ben Roesch, editor of The Cryptozoological Review, noted in an article in Fortean Times, "Cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal evidence.... [W]hile physical phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and are thus untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the scientific process.... Also, reports usually take place in uncontrolled settings and are made by untrained, varied observers. People are generally poor eyewitnesses, and can mistake known animals for supposed cryptids [unknown animals] or poorly recall details of their sighting.... Simply put, eyewitness testimony is poor evidence" (Roesc h 2001).

Eyewitnesses are horrible at size estimation (making size judgments by sight is something most people don't deal with on a daily basis) and they want to think they are seeing something unusual.

http://www.forteanzoology.com/faq/detail.a...aq=406&iType=50

http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index.php?o...d=431&Itemid=61

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/182_champ4.shtml

Studies and field reports hold this to be the case no matter how much you believe otherwise.

I have seen many animals that don't appear like they do...For all you know, you could of mistaken a elephant seal.

capeo, first off: i like your point of view and logic in matters, however I have to disagree about the eyewitnesses... If witnesses weren't reliable much of our know history wouldn't count for anything! How people behaved and thought in the past would be a mystery if not for descriptions and such. Here we have quite a few eyewitnesses that was interviewed rather soon after the "event" and pictures of the creature. and both of these suggests some sort of unknown animal carcas. In general I think there's more evidence for a cryptid than a well known animal (which the local fishermen should have recordnized).

Ecxuse my bad spelling, I'm quite tired...

Vidgange, I can't say I agree with that logic. Historians know well that written history (which I deduce is what you mean by eyewitness accounts as this is the only way it would reach us) must be taken with a grain of salt. The cultural status and influences of the author, if known, must be taken into account. The earlier the written record the more questionable it's factual basis (excepting some things such as the impeccable precision of dynastic chinese census). Historical accounts of events witnessed by an author must face the same scrutiny as any eyewitness account today. History is written by those who won remember.

I am very well aware of the fact that writings must undergo a rather hard critizicing before it can be exepted (i'm a historystudent myself so I know all about it ). But I also presume that this interviews where done in such a correct maner that it is good enough.

In this case, though, it's better if the interview took place right afterwards they saw the creature. This bacause they then havent had time talking themself together and agreeing with eachothers and changed the story and memory. It's only a good thing if some time have passed when you're searching about a king or someone else with much power since they want to look as good as possible, which is not the case here...

No way! We KNOW what an elephant seal looks like. Have you even bothered to read our description of what we saw on February 5, 1985?