Nick Redfern Further Expounds on Monsters and Proof
Posted by: Nick Redfern on June 7th, 2011
I posted Nick’s article from his Lair of the Beasts column earlier today here on Cryptomundo.
Loren responded with his post Cryptids Are Not Totally Elusive, Actually.
Nick further expounds on his theory here exclusively on Cryptomundo.
Thanks for running this, Loren. It’s clear to see that discussion of such creatures as being anything than just that – creatures – provokes a lot of controversy!
As you know Loren, I’m not dogmatic about this theory. I certainly do have a great deal of time for it. But, at the end of the day, it’s a theory, and until all evidence is in, a theory is all it can be. But, until (or if) all the evidence is in, then in my view all other theories are simply that too. And i’ve always stressed that. But, to expand a bit further, here’s why I hold such views:
The biggest mystery to me (and which prompts me to address the Tulpa theory) is why it’s always specifically the large Cryptids that elude us (and that’s the point of my post) and not other large animals.
I’ll tell you what I mean by that: We find bears in the woods and secure proof for their existence. We never get definitive 100 percent evidence for Bigfoot (note in my post I didn’t say we had zero proof, I confirmed we had some that always seems to end up in the “Maybe” drawer).
It’s the same with the oceans as it is with the woods: we observe, classify, catch etc. whales, dolphins, squid, eels etc. But, we never get conclusive evidence of sea serpents.
Turning to the skies: we can see, catch and classify eagles, crows, etc. But we never get conclusive proof of the large, unidentified birds that people report, or the pterodactyl-style creatures people talk about.
I don’t dispute at all the idea that a colony of Bigfoot-style creatures could hide from humankind – possibly quite successfully…for a while. But, the problem I have is that all across the world, it’s these particular groups of creature that we never get hard evidence for:
(A) the unidentified apes/wildmen;
(B) the lake monsters;
(C) the sea serpents; and
(D) the large winged-things.
And the interesting thing is that these are clear, delineated categories of animals that are beyond elusive. If they don’t fall into those categories, we prove their existence. If they do fall into those categories, we don’t prove their existence.
That’s the thing: we can routinely find – all the time – large animals in the exact same environments in which all the above are said to exist (woods, oceans, lakes, skies). So, why are these particular groups always the elusive ones, when other animals in the very same environments are not? Occasionally, yes of course they could elude ultimate detection. But always, throughout human history?
And re the bodies angle: yes, if any or all of these things are real, just once we should surely have a body. Even if the Bigfoot bury their dead, or the bodies of the Nessie creatures decay on the bed of the loch. I’m not asking for a thousand bodies of Bigfoot, or 40 Nessies, etc. Just one will do. Just one (of any of the varied Cryptids – flying, swimming, or walking). But, we don’t even have that. We have people who have claimed to have seen Bigfoot bodies etc. But, if the story of a body being found was undeniable, I wouldn’t be writing these words.
To me, there is something deeply weird as to why certain specific classifications of cryptid have – forever – eluded us, avoided undeniable classification, and have not turned up in the form of a corpse that can be confirmed as genuine for all to see.
None of this should be seen as me being skeptical of the existence of any of these things. I’m sure they do exist – absolutely. But, it’s the nature of that existence (physical, ethereal, somewhere in between) that I question.
One last point: some people (although certainly not you) seem at times to react with barely concealed hostility to my Tulpa-style views. But why? If Bigfoot exists, what does it matter if it’s some sort of ape, or something infinitely weirder that is connected to the human mind?
I’ve never really understood the emotional angle of people getting bent out of shape because someone suggests Bigfoot isn’t just an unknown ape, or some relic like Gigantopithecus. The goal, surely, should be to prove its existence, whatever that may be, and address all possibilities, wherever they may lead, and then accept the evidence when it’s found and if it’s found.
Nick Redfern
About Nick Redfern
Punk music fan, Tennents Super and Carlsberg Special Brew beer fan, horror film fan, chocolate fan, like to wear black clothes, like to stay up late. Work as a writer.
If you were a pre-Homo ape you’d be too dull-witted to take exception to that remark, even if you did understand our sign language. I knew you’d take the convergent evolution route, it’s the only card you can play. Are you sure Bigfoot’s not a marsupial? Seriously, it sounds like Bigfoot is to you what the Pronghorn is to the antelope. Where in the fossil record have we had convergent evolution among primates? If anything, we primates have had such diversity that none was ever needed. And we are an entire Order. Compare that with Carnivora where several niches were filled by unrelated Families
“… talking about hiding genius, while I have carefully explained for post after post that the animal ain’t hiding, people. Extreme Joe/Jane Average Schmoes are seeing them, left and right. Hearing them, smelling them. Footprints, hair, feces and blood, pretty much all over the place. And everyone thinks it’s too good to be true, and looks the other way.”
That’s some giant orangutan. I mean, to leave such a mess, thumbing its nose at us. It must feel really emboldened to let its guard down like that.
“It’s not hiding genius; it’s the human genius of walking right past what we don’t want to see, demonstrated yet again.”
It’s totally taking our ADD for granted and getting sloppy because it knows we’re too distracted by reality tv. I can see Bigfoot now, looking in through the window at DWA as he watches Finding Bigfoot, bitterly cursing everyone for being a Mr. Magoo.
I’m going to sound like Nick here to my embarrassment. There’s no body. There’s no DNA. There’s no video that everyone can jump on board with. The scientific community could care less even though it would be the find of the millennium. Then there’s the irony of us arguing over its intelligence …. and whether it’s human or Clint Eastwood’s sidekick. The US is over 300 million and counting. I think we’ll cut Bigfoot some slack since it has Nick convinced that it’ll go extinct if we don’t close our eyes and click our heels 3 times. DWA, you are THE ONE AND ONLY who isn’t impressed by how as a species it hides from our species. If Bigfoot is a normal ape, then we are retarded – You and Nick are at two extremes.
“I knew you’d take the convergent evolution route, it’s the only card you can play.”
Ah, but see, Nominay, I know how powerful a card it can be. You may not.
1) It’s a hell of a card on its face, dude, the ace in the deck, a card of undisputed value. We know convergent evolution happens. KNOW it. Tulpas? Evidence for those? Bigfoot, Homo? Evidence for that? Bingo;
2) Where have we had convergent primate evolution? Serious question? Really? All the primates in the fossil record that are coughhairycough and coughbipedalcough, a number of which are accepted by scientists as evolutionary dead ends;
3) The learned estiimate that we may have evidence for only five percent (5%; cinq percent; 5 out of 100; really really few) of all the primates that have ever lived. Anyone who bases any conclusion about evolution on the fossil record – that would be the fossil record *so far* – as you are trying to do is putting together a 5000-piece jigsaw puzzle using only 250 pieces. And good luck with that.
OK, as that one sinks flaming in the west. …
” I can see Bigfoot now, looking in through the window at DWA as he watches Finding Bigfoot, bitterly cursing everyone for being a Mr. Magoo. ”
I don’t watch TV programs on Bigfoot. (I rarely watch TV.) I busy myself with the evidence, which is all I have time for and which is given VERY short shrift in any TV treatment. Trust me, you only have to read these blogs to figure that one out. And while we are on that…
“It’s totally taking our ADD for granted and getting sloppy because it knows we’re too distracted by reality tv.”
NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT.
“DWA, you are THE ONE AND ONLY who isn’t impressed by how as a species it hides from our species.”
It’s no more elusive than animals we know about. And I’m not alone in that assessment. How the HELL are you thinking that all these people that I can practically guarantee you have never seen a wolf, mink, cougar, lynx or wolverine are seeing these?
“If Bigfoot is a normal ape, then we are retarded …”
DON’T GET ME STARTED.
Nick and I are at two extremes. You are at another one. There’s no evidence that this guy is any more special than the primates we know about. Except us, of course. WE are science-fiction “special.”
Particularly when it comes to seeing what we don’t want to see.
—————————————
“Is the yeti a flesh-and-blood animal, or is it a spirit?”
“How could it have been a spirit since we saw its footprints after it had run away?”
– Exchange between Charles Stonor and Sherpa Pasang Nyima, 1953
ERRATUM:
I stated in a previous post that I occupy an extreme position in this discussion.
Of course I don’t. Unless, of course, one considers the scientific method extreme, which for this discussion, it may be.
But sometimes extreme medicine is required to cure the patient.
So there’s my couldn’t-be-more-reasonable position. Let’s stop saying what the sasquatch is, as determined by a bunch of people sitting around a table *here* while the evidence sits in an untouched pile over *there.*
Let’s bring science into the hunt to figure out what the sasquatch is. And since science can’t prove “tulpa,” let’s shelve that one for now. (Unless Mr. Redfern has a search strategy for tulpas.) And get a specimen for Pete’s sake before anyone cries “human.”
Ok, after reading these comments and catching up… There seems to be some confusion here about convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is where when two unrelated species evolve to be similar in look. Take the Fossa in Madagascar. Its a member of the mongoose family, but if you saw one, you’d swear it was a feline. The Tasmanian Tiger looked a lot like a dog, but it was a marsupial. That’s what convergent evolution.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that no other species has evolved to look like a primate, especially an upper primate.
I think what you guys are thinking about is two separate species living side by side or even interbreeding…..that has happened a lot. Some branches were dead ends….some are still here… And scientists are pretty sure that Neanderthals and Humans interbred.
Ok, after reading these comments and catching up… There seems to be some confusion here about convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is where when two unrelated species evolve to be similar in look. Take the Fossa in Madagascar. Its a member of the mongoose family, but if you saw one, you’d swear it was a feline. The Tasmanian Tiger looked a lot like a dog, but it was a marsupial. That’s what convergent evolution.
I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that no other species has evolved to look like a primate, especially an upper primate.
I think what you guys are thinking about is two separate species living side by side or even interbreeding…..that has happened a lot. Some branches were dead ends….some are still here… And scientists are pretty sure that Neanderthals and Humans interbred.
Kahil, your comments precisely make my point. Convergent evolution extends down to families, of which the Fossa is of one and cats are of another, both under the Feliformia suborder. Our suborder Haplorrhini includes most primates. Orangutans are outside of our genus, subtribe, and tribe. These make up our subfamily which is us, Chimps, and Gorillas – Orangs fall outside of this too. The suggestion from DWA was that Bigfoot is more likely “Orangish” – that is, a descendent of Giganto Blacki – in spite of its similarities with us. We haven’t seen in living species or in the fossil record, the equivalent of a Fossa to our wildcat. DWA then suggested that those more closely related to us (within our subtribe) are examples of convergent evolution, which cannot be, because those evolutionary dead ends were more closely related to us than chimps.
Give it up DWA – I was making a sarcastic defense about Bigfoot slacking on its genius and mocking your appraisal of how clueless we are, so don’t think I’m coming around to your view.
“It’s no more elusive than animals we know about. And I’m not alone in that assessment. How the HELL are you thinking that all these people that I can practically guarantee you have never seen a wolf, mink, cougar, lynx or wolverine are seeing these?”
Actually, you can’t guarantee me that. An open mind would be to say half of these people have seen these animals because they live in rural areas and hunting is a part of that culture, but those species also don’t live closer to more urban areas the way Bigfoot does, so that answers your question.
“Nick and I are at two extremes. You are at another one. There’s no evidence that this guy is any more special than the primates we know about. Except us, of course. WE are science-fiction “special.”
The other primates we know about are all in cages, or bragged about in scientific reviews with an up close glossy photo (whatever lorise or tasier it is now). Bigfoot hasn’t dared let this happen, which is the premise of Nick’s madness. The two extremes I referred to are opposite ends, of which I am in middle.
Nominay:
Give it up? Apparently I won the argument. Nothing about the sasquatch suggests Homo. And I notice you gave that up. Any statements about the relation of extinct primates to us is sheer speculation. It may have some evidence supporting it but it’s still speculation. “When the ancestral forms are unspecified or unknown, or the range of traits considered is not clearly specified, the distinction between parallel and convergent evolution becomes more subjective.” That’s the case here. The over-reliance on the fossil record is a stone in the shoe of modern biology. It’s not incomplete. It’s pitifully incomplete.
I don’t suggest anything about the sasquatch’s lineage. One thing I am very consistent on is that no such presumption can be made. (I very seriously doubt Giganto, personally. But I have no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else.)
And as to this exchange:
—————————————-
“It’s no more elusive than animals we know about. And I’m not alone in that assessment. How the HELL are you thinking that all these people that I can practically guarantee you have never seen a wolf, mink, cougar, lynx or wolverine are seeing these?”
Actually, you can’t guarantee me that. An open mind would be to say half of these people have seen these animals because they live in rural areas and hunting is a part of that culture, but those species also don’t live closer to more urban areas the way Bigfoot does, so that answers your question.
—————————–
Actually, it doesn’t. An open mind can say that it’s possible but an open mind can’t conclude anything. The point is that sightings – which can in no way be discarded by a truly open mind – say that lots of people are seeing these animals, and that they aren’t really that elusive. Elusive yes, but not by the orders of magnitude that the fringe speculates. Maybe on the order of gorillas or chimps in non-conditioned populations. (And being generally solitary, they’re helped by that, as the others are social animals.) We just ignore the people who encounter them. Who, based on the evidence, I would bet lunch money don’t see the kinds of animals I listed and would expect to come out ahead.
We’re closer than we sound on this (except for the Homo thing, which I don’t buy but heck, I have no more evidence for that than you have that it is). But I’ve got to call Nick’s approach..well, not in concert with copious evidence.
Having been offline the last few days, I see there’s a few more comments. I think what the new (and old) comments collectively demonstrate is that Bigfoot researchers are (for the most part) polarized into 2 camps:
The majority clearly favor the flesh-and-blood angle. The minority do not. We all agree on one thing, however: we want proof of Bigfoot. And, by that, I mean a body. We all want that (living or dead, but preferably the former.
Even I, who have a massive amount of time for the Tulpa theory, would like to see Bigfoot shown to be flesh-and-blood. Why? Because in the world of science, it would make Cryptozoology legitimate, and would have the spiral effect of pushing people to then look for other cryptids, help with funding etc.
But, I feel that this won’t happen. What I do think will happen is that 20 years from now, 50 years from now, 200 years from now, people will have far more plaster-casts, more photos and footage etc that people will endlessly debate about (“Is it a man in a suit etc?”), but still no body. Why because there is something deeply, deeply odd about Bigfoot. But that’s just my view. Yours may be different. And so it goes.
If people want to continue to debate this, cool. But, even though it has been a stimulating debate, I’m not sure where it can go any further than just beyond the “I think it’s a Tulpa,” “No, I think it’s an ape,” angle. Why? Because we won’t agree, and we know that, unless something significant in the search for Bigfoot changes.
No DWA, I am referring to Homo, still.
“Nothing about the sasquatch suggests Homo.”
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see.
We have a disagreement about how much evidence there is. You champion science but then you disagree with the results of it. Who are you to say not enough scientific findings have come in? How much is enough? Any chance you’ll change your mind in your lifetime? You seem torn in a contradiction to me.
You claim to have no presumption and yet you have a hardened opinions of your own, such as to how Sasquatch is and what it isn’t. Btw, I’m not using the word elusive – that’s Nick’s – I am using the word eluded/eludes .. can we at least agree on that?
“I’m not sure where it can go any further than just beyond the “I think it’s a Tulpa,” “No, I think it’s an ape,” angle. Why? Because we won’t agree, and we know that, unless something significant in the search for Bigfoot changes.”
Nick, I can agree with that.
The thing that can change it is serious mainstream scientific involvement in the search – a significant component of which would be eliminating the scoff-without-evidence approach that still dominates the mainstream.
There is enough evidence to change scientists’ minds. My evidence for that? It has changed the mind of every scientist that has seriously considered the evidence. At least I have never heard a scientist negative on the evidence who demonstrated acquaintance with same.
Nominay: Well, yep, we’re gonna have to see.
I was doing an intellectual exercise before this post, because a hallmark of genus Homo is material culture beyond what we see in non-Homo species due to the planning and conceptual abilities – and the opposable thumb and precision grip – required (e.g., flint knapping; projectile points; etc.) What if we found evidence of a creature that was a Homo in every respect – except for not one shred of material culture evidence? Or, say, everything but an opposable thumb? What would happen then? I used to think that there was no way the sasquatch could be a hominid; then I read an opinion that I had to at least think opened the subject up for debate. So I don’t know; but the evidence – again to me personally – points away from genus Homo. The evidence of structures that we see doesn’t go beyond what extant non-human species – including birds and insects – can do. Again, material culture is just something these animals appear able to largely do without.
I don’t disagree with any “results;” there aren’t any yet. Proof is, to me, the result. And there is none yet. No scientific findings have come in yet. The only thing that is “enough” is what will count, to the society at large, as refereed by the scientific mainstream, as proof. I can’t change my mind until the state of the search changes. In my lifetime so far things have gotten worse, not better, even though the available evidence has skyrocketed. One has to analyze that evidence to go anywhere with it; and the society won’t accept the word of the proponents.
My “hardened opinions” are based on considerable acquaintance with evidence. I simply haven’t seen anything to change my personal viewpoint on this yet. But I’d hope we all understand that until there’s proof, opinions are just air.
I’d say that the sas and yeti are elusive animals. But I have read so many encounter reports for both that I feel pretty comfortable saying that the elusiveness is no more the reason for their continued cryptid status than …well, didn’t work for the lynx and wolverine.
“I’d say that the sas and yeti are elusive animals. But I have read so many encounter reports for both that I feel pretty comfortable saying that the elusiveness is no more the reason for their continued cryptid status than …well, didn’t work for the lynx and wolverine.”
The main difference between Bigfoot and other wildlife is that you can’t hunt it and you can’t capture it. Hasn’t worked. You can send dogs out to run a cougar up a tree, you can shoot Bigfoot’s prey (deer) easily enough, and if the inclination is there, you can create a bear trap. But as humans came to dominant the scene out in the open, Bigfoot succeeded as a species by avoiding us. It did this by relying on stealth and adapting as a nocturnal, forest dweller. That much isn’t worth subject of debate, but my belief of it having ESP goes a step further and is more specialized.
Nick – welcome back …. I just felt your theory deserved to be challenged, so I did that.
It seems to me that there is ample evidence to state there is a corporeal sasquatch, even if at times its a tulpa, an illusion, a ghost or organised nanobotien or recreational alien in protective garb. It is difficult enough to deal with the flesh and blood version without the extras even if not ruling them out! Good luck to those who wish to pursue the non zoology versions but its not for me and I doubt it would be productive.
I dont accept sasquatch and manimals cannot be hunted or captured without denying there are difficulties including its ESP. Human existence is partly a record of overcoming such difficulties right up to the largest creature that ever lived. I think it likely the minnesotta ice man was an example of an unfortunate success. I am totally against such a hunt and think there are other means of proof.
My view is that crptozoology shoots itself in the foot by not being robust enough in making the case for sasquatch based on evidence and wilting under fire from sceptics. Sceptics are out to destroy and not interested in finding balance. Left to them all the manimals and unknown hominids will quietly disappear. Sasquatch needs the right sort of friends! i think those who do know the evidence are letting Sasquatch down and allowing it and others to disappear off the face of the earth. I wonder how this compares to those who watched the thylacine go while they split metaphorical hairs ?
Also in my opinion science is failing sasquatch, getting hung up illegedly no body and hoaxes and myth. They are supposed to objectivey see their way round these sort of things like finding the picture in the autostereogram. Such a failure that a smart person like Nominay can say there is ‘no DNA’ , when of course there is, giving a wonderful resource for establishing a type specimen and as a resource to be studied for Sasquatch realtionships and characteristics.
I know little about what other impediments Sasquatch may face such as commercial interests or from religous bodies as these dont get a mention, but expect they do exist. As it is scientists are obstructing proof of Sasquatch and with admirable exceptions need a rethink.
Hi Norman,
“I don’t accept sasquatch and manimals cannot be hunted or captured without denying there are difficulties including its ESP. Human existence is partly a record of overcoming such difficulties right up to the largest creature that ever lived.”
Sure, it’s “possible” to take a one into custody .. but Sasquatch, to its credit, has accomplished its objective, up to this point. Part of that is its unmatched intelligence to other creatures, great and small.
“It is difficult enough to deal with the flesh and blood version without the extras even if not ruling them out!”
Difficult by our standards. We’re use to thinking of ourselves as omnipotent when it comes to resolving matters which lie before us. We’re use to thinking of ourselves as the height of all levels of intelligence and means above all others. And when it comes to Sasquatch, we don’t consider that a fellow hominid of close relation could share our cunning nature but in a different way. In short, we are arrogant.
“Such a failure that a smart person like Nominay can say there is ‘no DNA’ , when of course there is, giving a wonderful resource for establishing a type specimen and as a resource to be studied for Sasquatch realtionships and characteristics.”
First, thanks for the back-handed compliment… If you’re satisfied with the DNA results so far, then tell me, what IS Sasquatch? Is it a Homo Erectus? Is it Gigantopithecus? Where does Bigfoot fall on the evolutionary tree? All we know is that its not a gorilla or a man .. whoop-de-doo. And that the sequencing’s incomplete to the extent Bigfoot remains unidentified, leaves open the possibility of error or contamination. That Bigfoot gets to have its way with the DNA like this too is part of what inspires the legend Nick and others go along with: that Bigfoot is supernatural, trans-dimensional, or jailed in a spacecraft and allowed 1 hour a day recreation on Earth.
Nominay
I actually think sasquatch has in the past been captured and bodies and bits held. Still are in dusty museum backrooms or garage shelves. Not taken seriously or neglected, why should they when sasquatch is either considered a long shot or tomfoolery. Possibly viewed by religious organisations as akin to witchcraft. I did ask some jehovas witnesses what they thought of sasquatch but they never came back with an answer.
This doesnt mean sasquatch isnt elusive, very much so. But historicaly sasquatch has fought a losing battle with technology such as the bow and arrow and homo sapiens sapience. In its own environment sasquatch is likely to be master as long as it can keep its distance from modern man including its weapons and tactics.
There is a problem of disease too for sasquatch, outbred and outgunned leading to a smaller population and less ability to cope with new or evolving diseases brought to it by its near relative modern man. How many campers and researchers drop fataly for example their newer versions of E.coli etc onto sasquatch. hopefully it is now relatively resistant to measles. The outcome of this is that sasquatch populations are unlikely to flourish where there is contact with man, comfirming and addding to their elusiveness.
There is every reason to be dissatisfied with sasquatch DNA results first because most testing doesnt find any sasquatch DNA and what has been found hasn’t actually revealed much. What is potentially possible is that progress should by now be being made in identifying characteristics of the sasquatch and relationship to man and other primates (if comfirmed).
Many samples have been found but little result. Maybe partly because Saquatch DNA seems close to human DNA and when you get to human DNA it becomes political. In some case analysis of the sample is a half hearted attempt perhaps influenced by the sceptics chant that without a body the DNA result wouldnt mean anything. In the modern world the DNA is potentially the body and if several appropriate samples produce an approppriate result then there is a 21st century type specimen! I have read somewhere of this being done or attempted. Before Sasquatch and other manimals go extinct, DNA would be technicaly a good substitute for a body and in time provide all possible imformation. Not the prefered solution by any means.
I doubt if anyone knows for certain what Sasqutch is but it seems its quite close to humans and this is what may be causing some of the problems with analysing the DNA samples and making a distinctions. You suggest know that Saquatch is not man, I am not so sure about that as there already is a hugh variety of humans included in that genera from australian aboriginee to eskimo.
I will mention for DWA there were reports of sasquatch having some technology and wearing clothes in former times
“I actually think sasquatch has in the past been captured and bodies and bits held. Still are in dusty museum backrooms or garage shelves.”
As far as I’m concerned, it might as well have never happened, if it ever did. There’s nothing to account for what undoubtedly have been great stories. Very much full of drama and I love them all. But true or not, there’s nothing to defend these accounts from being written off as tall tales. I’ve seen the skulls at the Humboldt Museum. Mind you, I didn’t see them in person, but one of them does have a quarter underneath its chin. I held a quarter under my own chin in the mirror, and there was no difference in scale.
“I doubt if anyone knows for certain what Sasqutch is but it seems its quite close to humans and this is what may be causing some of the problems with analysing the DNA samples and making a distinctions. You suggest know that Saquatch is not man, I am not so sure about that as there already is a hugh variety of humans included in that genera from australian aboriginee to eskimo. I will mention for DWA there were reports of sasquatch having some technology and wearing clothes in former times”
I’m not one to cast endless speculations of Bigfoot. I understand it’s tempting and I don’t blame others for doing so. It does seem arrogant though when people think they’re “on to something” without any compelling evidence. Theories will stay theories. Maybe that’s why Nick has gone back to his blog. I have a few colorful opinions, but I base those on what we can gauge from things like footprints and videos that would be foolish and immature to explain away as a man in a suit. But there is one thing I’m pretty damn sure of, and that is that Bigfoot is not Homo Sapien Sapiens. There is not a single video where Bigfoot rents an apartment, withdraws money from an ATM, or stops by the cleaners. The aboriginee or eskimo could pass a crash course in these situations, then again, their physiques are so distinctive from Bigfoot a blind man could tell the difference. If you want to define man as Homo, cool, it’s a big family but almost extinct. Type while you can!