Short of a polygraph test, there’s no way to be sure. And even then, polygraph machines aren’t 100% accurate; then there’s the scenario in which the witness hallucinates, firmly believing what she saw was real even if it wasn’t; a lie detector test couldn’t rule that out. Short of physical evidence, of which there wasn’t any, there’s no way we can be certain that the event described by a 50-year-old woman in Moscow (Idaho, not Russia) is true. According to her account, she was driving along in a Subaru Forester when she saw a fully-grown Bigfoot chasing a herd of deer, running along the side of the road. One of the deer darted in front of her SUV and she hit it.
The best we can do here is to ask ourselves logically why the woman would lie. As the news reports have not mentioned her name, it would seem she has no desire to gain fame (or a book deal) from the incident. And there need be no deflection of blame game going on. “A deer ran out in front of me” is a perfect explanation for the crash; no mention of Bigfoot is necessary to lend it veracity; in fact the inclusion of the hairy hominid detracts from rather than enhances the credibility of her story. Why, then, would she make such a thing up? It doesn’t seem feasible that she would. We are left, then, with the first two scenarios. Either she hallucinated—or she really saw a Bigfoot. Which do you think is the most likely?