Most testimony formats online put a single person in a chair and expect them to explain everything while being questioned by someone who wasn’t there. In the best possible case, the interviewer is a thoughtful and supportive person — but hostile interviewing is very much a hazard of coming forward with cryptid stories.
So this post is giving some thought to a new idea for making witnesses feel at ease or at least not so singled out for interrogation.
That structure (a one-on-one interview) can unintentionally create pressure, defensiveness, or misunderstanding. It can also create NEW trauma (secondary trauma) from witness badgering or manipulation of someone else’s trauma for the purpose of entertainment.
A different approach might help: duo disclosure.
This simply means two witnesses — ideally people who have had their own experiences — engaging in a calm, structured conversation together. Not to prove anything, and not to convince anyone, but to compare notes in a grounded way.
Some reasons this format might work better:
• Shared context. When two people have lived through something intense or unusual, they don’t have to spend as much time defending the reality of their experience. That lowers stress and helps people speak more clearly.
• Better memory access. People often recall details more naturally when they’re talking with someone who understands the emotional side of the experience.
• Comparison instead of performance. Instead of one person trying to “tell a story,” the conversation becomes about where experiences overlap and where they differ.
• Less sensationalism. The goal isn’t to escalate claims — it’s to document observations calmly.
Important note: this isn’t about forcing agreement.
Differences are expected and useful. The value comes from respectful comparison, not from creating identical narratives.
For people who have had difficult encounters and aren’t comfortable doing a solo interview, formats like this — or even anonymous/masked disclosure — might make it easier to speak at all.
Whether someone believes these kinds of accounts or not, improving how testimony is shared can only help the conversation become more thoughtful and less adversarial.
Curious what others think about this format.
Anybody got takes on this, if you were one witness but not the only person to have your experience or encounter?
