The first reported sighting of Pantyboots appears on record in February of the year 2008 at a party (themed “Object of Desire”) at a dentist’s house amongst the desert foothills of Northern Phoenix. The report of the initial sighting is slightly descriptive and includes multiple witness statements but lacks visual support, references, and date and time marks to make it a truly substantial and verifiable report.
After this initial report, the trail goes cold and one has to assume that Pantyboots will be regulated to the file reserved for those once-in-a-lifetime creatures whose tales are only told at fireside storytellings and in 99 cent comic book bins. These desolate urban legends are destined to fade away as subsequent generations, more robust in their fervor for creatures with solid histories, march into the future.
Furthermore, future filings, found with the initial report, detail in-depth, multi-party searches for Pantyboots on foot, horseback, and land vehicles through the desert outreaches without success. The search parties state that their vast area boundaries for the search are based on witness statements from the initial report filing, in which they (the witnesses) recount the evening of the sighting and detail the surroundings (including but not limited to: wall coverings, carpeting colors, dance music, types and brands of drugs and alcohol consumed, backyard furniture, outfits of fellow partygoers, and sizes of various firepits) but as we have seen multiple times in courts of higher justice, witness recounts based on memory are less credible than desired and can be prohibited from use in civil proceedings based on such a lack of credibility. In fact, B. L. Cutrod, Ph.D. describes this phenomenon as follows:
Uncritical acceptance of eyewitness testimony seems to be based on the fallacious notion that the human observer is a perfect recording device that everything that passes before his or her eyes is recorded and can be “pulled out” by sharp questioning or “refreshing one’s memory”. In a categorical statement, which psychologists rarely make, I can argue that this is impossible – human perception and memory function effectively by being selective. A human being has no particular need for perfect recall, perception and memory are decision-making processes affected by the totality of a person’s abilities, background, environment, attitudes, motives, and beliefs, and by the methods used in testing recollection of people and events.
One can see how relying on witness statements led to the search party’s failure in obtaining further verifiable information on Pantyboots.
However, on February 14, 2009 Pantyboots was once again spotted at a similar (if not the exact same) dentist’s house party in the foothills of Northern Phoenix. Multiple witness accounts state that not only was Pantyboots present at this party but that such presence was documented with a detailed and complex system of cross-referencing witness account statements and data from this party with the witness statements from the initial 2008 report (which was present at the February 14, 2009 party).
Though, as stated above, witness accounts are lacking in credibility. How can we really and truly know that Pantyboots was there? And will we ever really know?
It seems that such a question would have been where this file on Pantyboots comes to an end. And such it would have been, had not this incredible photograph surfaced in which we can see witness #271, named Lady of Leisure, standing in front of what appears to be Pantyboots:
Subsequent digital dehancement and unimaging has revealed that this photograph has not been altered or photoshopped in any way and that we are in fact looking at a digital representation of the elusive and infamous Pantyboots. This is an exciting revelation in the case and warrants renewed land and air searches as well as a push for more federal funding to keep this case active.
Any and all future information regarding Pantyboots will included in this file.
Cutrod, B.L. and S.D. Penrod. Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology, and the Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.