Sasquatch Coffee


Nick Redfern on Monsters and Proof

Posted by: Nick Redfern on June 7th, 2011

Nick Redfern, blogger on our sister site UFOMystic, shares the following at his Lair of the Beasts blog.

People often ask me: When will we finally have proof for the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Chupacabra and the absolute menagerie of additional strange beasts alleged to lurk in the darker and wilder parts of our world? But when people ask that question, what many of them they really want to know is this: When will we have proof that Bigfoot is a giant ape, and the creatures of Loch Ness represent a surviving, relic population of plesiosaurs?

And that’s the problem we have when it comes to securing proof: If Bigfoot is just a large, unclassified ape then we would surely have secured the evidence in support of such a scenario by now. It’s the same with Nessie: where are the bodies?

If there’s one thing that all of the many and varied creatures that fall under the banner of Cryptozoology have in common – whether it’s Sasquatch, lake-monsters, the aforementioned Chupacabra, werewolves, sea-serpents, Mothman, the Yeti, the Jersey Devil and countless more – it’s their overwhelming, eerie elusiveness.

Bigfoot never, ever gets hit by a car and expires on the road, smashed to a bloody pulp. There are countless reports on record where people claim to have shot at Bigfoot, only for the bullets to have no effect whatsoever. Footprints vanish in the snow, as if the creature itself has vanished too – and I do mean literally vanished.

As for the beasts of Scotland’s most famous loch: a number of significant reports exist where people have tried to photograph the beasts, only for their cameras to malfunction or for the photographs to come out fogged.

It is issues like this that, probably 15 or more years ago now, made me utterly give up on the idea that the monsters of our world are simply animals that science has yet to identify, classify, and confirm in terms of their existence. The stark reality of the situation is that there is something very strange about all the sundry strange beasts out there. Their elusiveness is taken to ridiculous levels. No other animal on the planet has the ability to remain hidden from society – and never captured or identified – in the way that Bigfoot does.

In other words, no matter whether the location is the huge forests of the Pacific Northwest, the wild waters of Scotland, the Himalayas, the El Yunque rain-forest of Puerto Rico, or the depths of the oceans, history has demonstrated that each and every single attempt to secure physical evidence of the monsters in question has ended in nothing but complete failure. Or, if some form of evidence is found, it’s never, ever proven to be 100 percent conclusive. It always languishes in a drawer marked “Maybe.”

Of course, the skeptic might state that the reason why we have demonstrably failed to find even one Bigfoot corpse, a bit of Nessie DNA, or the claw of a Chupacabra is because these entities and the rest of their motley ilk are merely borne out of folklore, mythology, camp-fire tales, hoaxing and misidentification.

I most certainly don’t dispute the fact that there are cases out there that do indeed fall into the very categories I describe directly above. But, there is also a solid body of very strong and highly credible eyewitness testimony relative to encounters with unknown animals – from just about every part of our planet.

But, I have come to believe that none of these “things” are what they appear to be. They look real. They appear flesh-and-blood-like. Yet, everything about them practically screams out: “Apparition! Phantom! Ghostly!”

One theory that I have a great deal of time for is that which suggests the majority of crypto-creatures are Tulpas. In essence, Tulpas – for those like me who believe in them, of course – are entities borne out of the depths of the human imagination. Their creation goes something like this: Tonight, when the skies are dark and the wind howls, lie down, and focus your mind on the image of a monstrous, glowing-eyed wolf. Nurture that image in your mind for days, for weeks even. Imagine the animal surfacing from the heart of your mind, and then striding right out into the real world.

The something extraordinary happens. A few weeks later, your local newspaper reports an astonishing story: In the nearby woods, someone has seen a huge wolf-like animal with blazing red eyes. The beast – the Tulpa – that you have worked so hard to create in your mind now has a semblance of quasi-reality. You have given birth to a mind-monster. And it’s on the loose, very happy that it now has a foothold – albeit a somewhat precarious and ethereal one – in our world.

And how do Tulpas sustain their existence? They feed on high-states of human emotion. Perhaps that’s why people see Bigfoot. If Bigfoot doesn’t ensure people see it – and those people are not rendered into a high state of shock, fear, anxiety or excitement – then it has nothing to mentally feed upon. The result: Its strange existence begins to unravel and it becomes less and less physical, more and more phantom-like, until it finally winks out into nothingness.

Until, that is, the unconscious, ancient affinity that we all have – and that we have all had since the first ancient humanoid called a cave his home – with spooky woods, sinister and dark lakes and lochs, mysterious jungles, and the monsters we like to think lurk within, causes us to provoke the creation of yet more such monsters. Thus, the cycle continues and a new Bigfoot, Yeti, or Chupacabra, appears.

So, back to the first paragraph of this article: How do we secure proof that crypto-creatures do exist? The stark reality of the situation is that proof may be impossible to obtain – because there may be nothing tangible to find. That doesn’t mean people aren’t seeing anything. They most assuredly are. But, I will leave you with this question: How do we secure evidence for the existence of something that may, essentially, be an externalized, ethereal life-form created by one of the strangest mysteries of all time, the human brain?Nick Redfern

Nick RedfernNick Redfern – has written 754 posts on this site.
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.


43 Responses to “Nick Redfern on Monsters and Proof”

  1. Loren Coleman responds:

    Nick Redfern, whom I like personally, unfortunately makes the simple mistake that so many people who are not truly cryptozoological in their thinking make. He seems to be reversing definitions here, and making “elusiveness” part of what makes a cryptid, a cryptid. Actually, cryptids are only cryptids until their true nature is known, and the fact is they are not elusive…

    For my total response to this posting, please read here: Cryptids Are Not Totally Elusive, Actually.

    Thank you.

  2. shownuff responds:

    This Nick guy offended me in so many ways its not even funny. I have 70% Taino Native blood coursing through my veins. In the Island of Puerto Rico this so-called Chupacapras was a alien type creature. Not a hairless hybrid K-9. This is Cryptomundo, where we speak of cryptozoology not aliens. If people want to say that the hairless K-9 is the Chupacabras then that’s entirely up to whoever.

    I am offended because my people traded with the neighboring Native American Tribes as well as the South Americans and they would teach each other about the religious creatures they believed in. Many, Many Tribes believe in Bigfoot or Sasquatch. And include them into their religious practices. Stories go back thousands of years.

    Evidence huh? ( BODIES) ? Well not so long ago I remember listening to a man called Jimmy Chilcutt, a solid blue collar working man. That has alot of respect from Law enforcement and Our Government. Worked on High profile cases in forensics. Jimmy said I dont need a “Body” to put people in jail. That sent chills down my spine. And still does.

    So Nick there’s your Tulpus. Give jimmy a call.

    As far as Nessie goes, the Scottish people love making money off the merchandise of Old Nessie but I don’t think they would like to disturb or stress the animal out to a point they just end up going somewhere else. I believe I have read there is some under water cave systems in the Scottish Loch.

    We Natives and Americans as well as our French speaking brothers and sisters from Canada live in the West. Where we put mass amounts of energy studying this Ape like creature. Its here. Close by. Footprints with dermal ridges and showing footprints of aging upright walking apes is enough for me. There are thousands of people now with better equipment out there doing their best. Professionals from all types of fields.

    So even though I will not speak much Chupacabra or Nessie, I sure can about Sasquatch. We don’t need a body Nick. We’ve got DNA we got hair samples we got footprints and some good videos of Sasquatch some not so good. Its only a matter of time. And just like everything else that is discovered in the world.

    We will tune in for a little and then forget about it as soon as there is a murder case or some pop star is back in rehab.

    Thank you Mr. Woolheater for posting this and for reading my comment guys.

  3. SirKen63 responds:

    Interesting read. So your saying you think most people are creating the monster from their mind. As in the movie Forbidden Planet, this was the monsters of the ID. Monsters manifested from there subconscious mind.

    Not going to say it does not happen because I think people do see thing that are not there. See a wave and that wave to them is a sea serpent. But you can not say that all the eyewitness accounts are Monsters of the ID.

    I think a lot of the failed attempts to shoot (with a camera or gun) of a creature is due to the fact that it happens so fast and the person is so shocked about what they are seeing. I do think your Tulpas are something researchers have had to take into account when hearing an encounter.

    Great read Nick, thanks. :)

  4. Ulysses responds:

    Bravo Loren, bravo! I am a fan of Nick and have purchased several of his books but when he mentioned the tulpas…..well. You mentioned my personal Crypto hero, Ivan T. Sanderson and I recall you being close to him too and yes, he is absolutely correct! In these “Things and More Things”, we must take a Sherlock Holmes approach and work with the evidence at hand and there is so much more today thanks to modern technology, DNA, thermal scans, satellite, etc. In Redfern’s UFO books he could have easily said tulpas too but he took a systematic approach and came up with a wonderful explanation for Roswell which is I still think, may have validity. Again Loren bravo, for the fact you are a gentlemen and do not insult anyone but just point out the problems. There’s too many people out there now issuing the insults and disparaging people and their views.

  5. mandors responds:

    When I was in elementary school, the idea that Vikings crossed the Atlantic and founded settlements was ridiculed. Ten years ago, the fact that the Anasazi practiced cannibalism was a hypothesis that nearly turned its researcher into a pariah in the archaeological community.

    It is not uncommon for science to get something terribly, terribly wrong. Too often, so called experts hide behind the scientific method in a veiled attempt at resisting new discoveries. In their biases they dismiss theories as “extraordinary” then require “extraordinary proof.” But who gets to say what is extraordinary? A sea faring people going a little farther than expected? A Native American community living adjacent to civilizations that practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism displaying similar behaviors?

    Who is to say a large, unknown biped doesn’t walk the Northwest or an elusive marine animal frequents the Scottish lake region. You could just as well propose that aliens have visited Earth from outer space.

  6. graybear responds:

    I really like the idea of tulpas, the idea that we can, by the power of our own minds, create the temporarily physical existence of the creatures we identify as cryptids. I don’t believe it, but I like it. The theory would leave Nessie as a Kelpi (Celtic water horse), Bigfoot as trolls, True Giants as, well, true giants, and that mushroom ring that always grows in the field back of my house as a dancing floor for the Sidhe. Pixies would pollinate my wife’s flower garden and ride on the backs of hummingbirds.

    Lovely thoughts, but if we can create these things by the power of our own minds, why are there no honest politicians? Surely we could think up one? Theory closed, I’m afraid.

  7. ktowne responds:

    I tend to agree with Nick Redfern. He DOES NOT say in his article that cryptids don’t exist. He’s just posing the theory that perhaps they don’t exist in the way that most people believe they do.

    There’s usually a lot more involved with the appearance of these creatures than people like to admit, and when something strange coincides with these appearances that the investigator doesn’t understand or that doesn’t fit in with their own beliefs, they tend to just throw it out, such as camera malfunctions and the disappearing footprints and gunshots that seem to do no harm.

    There is the possibility that people are becoming flustered, but my husband had a friend of the family that was a sniper in Vietnam who shot at a creature at close range and it seemed to just startle it. I find it hard to think an experienced sniper would miss at close range.

    There are many sightings that describe sasquatch as disappearing. No matter how wilderness savvy they are, I find it unlikely that a 800 or 900 lb creature could “disappear” in the way described.

    I believe people are seeing these creatures as flesh and blood but they may not be just that. I love when someone offers up something new to think about and when it comes to cryptozoology, paranormal, or similar phenomenon it’s important and almost necessary to keep an open mind and to explore new possibilities.

  8. NWesterner responds:

    Interesting column by Redfern. I agree with some of it and disagree on the main point. I think its true there is something else going on with many of these hidden creatures. Its not just a physical thing, there is something perhaps inter-dimensional or preternatural taking place. Especially with Bigfoot. It may be the case that hard definitive proof (such as a body or live specimen) for any of these creatures will never be found, not because they don’t exist, but for the reason they are not from our realm as we know it. But I don’t agree its a creation of the human mind, though it is an intriguing possibility, rather I’m of the opinion these creatures do exist as independent entities.

  9. Hapa responds:

    Kinda interesting. I remember watching a film made by a church that involved reporters investigating UFO abductions, only to make out such phenomena the work of Demons. They even tried to put Bigfoot into that mix. That can be a science stopper (would you want to pursue real live demons in the wild that take on forms of giant apes and water monsters? ET?).

    Lets not forget that Gorillas were supernatural beings until their bones were discovered.

  10. shownuff responds:

    Wow! Natives Do believe that everything is alive. Everything has spirit. But let us not confuse Science with spirit.

    I am not a fan of Nick. Though I respect his theories.

    Plus Mr. Woolheater posted this not Loren. Just want to point this out. Give the correct respect.

    To a degree Nick is right. And again I want to point out undisputed evidence is DNA, hair samples, foot print castings of the NAPE. examined by credible Scientist. I am not 100% sure there is Footprint castings of Nessie or the Original Chupacabra, from the beautiful Island of Puerto Rico. But there is not any DNA. There is on the other hand of the NAPES.

    You can not mentally manifest DNA or a legit Footprint casting examined by a Scientist. Confirming its 100% real. DNA, DNA! proves this theory on the Bigfoot wrong.

    Sorry Nick, nice try, people have awakened and we now know skittles from M&Ms.

    Stick this theory to whatever you want to stick it to. But you can’t anymore to Bigfoot.

  11. Nick Redfern responds:

    Shownuff:

    You say in your comment above: “Well not so long ago I remember listening to a man called Jimmy Chilcutt, a solid blue collar working man. That has alot of respect from Law enforcement and Our Government. Worked on High profile cases in forensics. Jimmy said I dont need a “Body” to put people in jail.”

    That’s entirely true. But you’re missing the most important point of all: Jimmy, using forensics, may indeed be able to secure evidence of murder without a human body being found. But, in most cases where murder has occurred, there is a human body found!

    Why, with Bigfoot, is there NEVER a corpse? Why should we ALWAYS have to be reliant on DNA that usually ends up as controversial, or photos, tracks and film-footage?

    Just because someone may be able to prove a murder without a corpse doesn’t mean that this is routinely the case, all across the world, on every occasion. It certainly is not. Bodies turn up left, right and center in murder cases.

    But, with Bigfoot, we’re ALWAYS forced to try and prove a case WITHOUT a body.

    People would find it VERY, VERY strange if in every single murder case in recorded history there was no corpse (ever), and the police were forced to rely just on forensics, the tire-tracks of the suspected murderer, blurry security-camera footage at the alleged crime-scene et.

    People would soon realize that the overwhelming elusiveness of the corpses was very odd.

    But that overwhelming elusiveness is exactly what’s going on in Bigfoot seeking. Except for one thing: most Bigfooters don’t find it odd.

  12. Nick Redfern responds:

    Hapa:

    You say: “Lets not forget that Gorillas were supernatural beings until their bones were discovered.”

    But, that’s the point: they were discovered, classified, categorized etc. And today we can all see them in zoos, in the wild (just about still), and on TV shows, clearly demonstrating they exist.

    Having proved the existence of the Gorilla, I still find it odd that the Yowie, the Yeren, Bigfoot, the Yeti, the Almasty etc etc are always one step ahead. Always.

  13. Nick Redfern responds:

    Shownuff:

    You’re entitled to your views. But, again, I come back to the crux of my post: why is it that certain categories of Cryptid (unknown apes, lake-monsters, sea-serpents, and large winged animals) never turn up in the form of an undeniable (and I do mean undeniable) corpse?

    Whole categories of wildly differening entities, but with two things in common: (A) they’re cryptids; and (B) they’re all masters at avoiding capture, death, or relinquishing a corpse.

    Say what you like, but (in terms of the statistical chances of them never ever screwing up, getting hit by a car, dying in the woods and being found, etc etc) it is, without doubt, very weird.

  14. flame821 responds:

    points of contention:

    1] Most murder cases START with the finding of a corpse (not all, but most) so we’re working backwards on this one. Plus I image back when humans were a bit more ‘green’ we didn’t leave nearly as much evidence of our existence behind as we do now. Perhaps a cooking pit or some bones or scat, and those are not easy to find either. Even now, if you were looking for the body of a human you would need to be in the right place at the right time. (Battlefield, gang war, morgue, etc)

    2] Tulpas sound like a mix between a Pookha and a psychic vampire, but if they are beings created by universal fears and anxieties, wouldn’t their forms have changed dramatically over the years? Particularly in first world nations were predation by wildlife and starvation are not the overwhelming concerns of the masses. Our fears are quite different from the fears of a tribe in the Savannah, as we tend not to face the same day to day challenges and perils.

  15. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Hop aboard! …… Nick Redfern gives us a one way ticket to Dreamland!

    Flows quite nice, but he’s taking ‘waxing lyrical’ to new heights. …However each to their own!

    How on earth did ’Patty Tulpa’ 67, manage to appear on film? As a figment of someone’s imagination? Ignore those perennial sceptics with their dogged views; the moving images of the bipedal figure ’Patty’ are commonly held to represent the definitive image of the mature matriarchal sasquatch, and has been subjected to rigorous scientific analysis along with the study of the actual physical track way and environs at Bluff Creek, corroboration of this ilk is unique and truly made in heaven! Irrefutable scientific evidence is on the record.

    Nick Redfern ought to sober up by reading ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA Dr Jeff Meldrums groundbreaking scientific paper published in 2007

    I don’t want to go on too much about this but surely most sane people can at least differentiate between the likelihood of creatures being manifestations of the paranormal and ’flesh & blood’ creatures that leave physical signs of their presence

    There is no ‘common sense’ differentiation; what is being offered here is Nick Redferns ‘unification theory’ for elusive cryptids, formulated as a sort of ‘lazy mans’ antidote to the angst caused by the ‘frustration of pursuit’ . It amounts to an imaginative weaving of disparate crypto elements into a tapestry of mystical fantasy; an exercise in pure whimsy! ….we should not be seriously indulged!

    I don’t doubt Nick Redfern’s theory will prove to be a soothing balm and a comforting retreat for those that ‘lose their way‘, perhaps having succumbed to some kind of scientific burnout after years spent in pursuit of the truth! … They will simply read it and declare with a smile: “it all makes sense now …my quest is over” …before quietly slipping away into the ether!

  16. shownuff responds:

    @ Nick Redfern thank you for your response. I will not disagree with you. To a degree you are correct. With alot of the so called Cryptids. There was and still is alot of DNA samples that come out inconclusive and their is DNA samples that flat out say their is a Ape walking around the Pacific North West. Now, can I honestly say its a bigfoot? a upright walking apish creature. No. But the DNA samples show there are APES in the Forest of North America. People have hit them, I guess not hard enough to kill them on the spot. There has never been any DNA of other cryptids. But there is of the NAPES. That is the only point I was trying to make. Thats all. Not disprove your theory. Theories are a healthy part of science. Look at all the answers we have to today based on theories. But thats just it. A theory. Something to make you say “Hmmm, I wonder?” DNA is real. Am I missing something here. Theory vs real undisputed DNA? I dont care about the Lochness or some goatsucker. But I do about NAPES. Because they are real. People who do not believe in any monsters or are scared of the dark or have something wrong with their brains. have had encounters with Bigfoot. I do not live In Aussie or China or Russia. I live here in the good Ol US of A. And here we have DNA evidence. That is not controversial. I agree that your Theory has merit towards alot of other creatures with ZERO kind of evidence. Just stories. DNA is DNA!

  17. Nick Redfern responds:

    Dermal Ridges Are Proof:

    You say: “Nick Redfern’s theory will prove to be a soothing balm and a comforting retreat for those that ‘lose their way…”

    I would have to disagree. I don’t think my theory/view has anything to do with providing comfort for those who have lost their way/become disillusioned etc. I’m honestly not that pyschologically deep a person – really! LOL.

    Rather – and, for me, it really is this simple – given that Bigfoot has been reported in (I think?) every US state but Hawaii, and is described as being anywhere from 6 foot to 9 feet tall (and in a few cases, even taller), I find it totally unfeasible that – with a population apparently spread from the Pacific Northwest to Texas, and from Alaska to Pennsylvania – we would not have even one body – JUST ONE.

    I may be wrong (and if I am, I’m totally cool about saying so), but if we occcasionally find dead deer, dead bears, dead racoons, dead coyote, dead etc etc etc etc, why dont we EVER (and I do mean EVER) find dead Bigfoot?

    The idea that their comrades have successfully buried ALL of them (and they have not been dug up by other animals), and that a mistake never, EVER happens, is in my view, simply not feasible.

    There are NUMEROUS reports of people seeing Bigfoot racing across the road late at night (particularly in the vicinity of bridges – bridges play central roles in countless Fortean tales). You’d think that JUST ONCE the startled car-driver who sees them on the bridge would hit the damned thing!

  18. Nick Redfern responds:

    flame 821:

    You say: “…Plus I image back when humans were a bit more ‘green’ we didn’t leave nearly as much evidence of our existence behind as we do now. Perhaps a cooking pit or some bones or scat, and those are not easy to find either. Even now, if you were looking for the body of a human you would need to be in the right place at the right time. (Battlefield, gang war, morgue, etc).”

    Agreed.

    But the point is we HAVE left behind cooking pots and bones. And, yes, they may be hard to find. But the point is, that we DO find them. That’s why we can ascertain certain facts about our past.

    Bigfoot, on the other hand, has NOT left behind bones. EVER. NOT ONCE.

  19. Nick Redfern responds:

    Flame821:

    You say: “Tulpas sound like a mix between a Pookha and a psychic vampire, but if they are beings created by universal fears and anxieties, wouldn’t their forms have changed dramatically over the years?”

    Personally, I don’t think they would have changed – dramatically or otherwise.

    My personal view is that our views on “monsters” and strange beasts are borne out of the primordial beliefs and inherited memories that hark back to the VERY earliest forms of what, today, passes for the Human Race.

    Highly rudimentary entities – that eventually evolved into us – may have been literally plagued by Gigantopithecus-type creatures, by large birds, and by large, water-dwelling creatures. Our collective psyche may retain some of those memories of all 3 categories of beast.

    Thus, it would make sense for us, today, to use (granted, at a wholly subconscious level) these definitive ancient archetypes (hairy man-beasts, giant flying things, and water beasts) in our creation of modern-day “things.” There is no reason for them to change, because that’s what our long-gone ancestors may have been exposed to in the real world. We remember the ancient past, but we don’t consciously realize we remember the ancient past until we bring it into being today…

  20. loyalfromlondon responds:

    “I think Bigfoot is blurry, that’s the problem. It’s not the photographer’s fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that’s extra scary to me, because there’s a large out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He’s fuzzy. Get outta here” – Mitch Hedberg

  21. Hapa responds:

    Mr Redfern:

    Before I respond, I want to say that I found your tulpa theory of cryptids an intriguing idea. And I am glad you gave the word “Tulpa” instead of just “Thought form” (where is the phrase “Tulpa from? Buddhism?)

    Yes, we have definitive proof of Gorillas through originally finding their bones, something that has not happened yet for Sasquatch, officially. But remember that Gorillas were beings of myth that for over two thousand years evaded western factual knowledge until the 1800s (a roman explorer was said to have seen on in 5 BC (Gorillas: portrait of the animal world” by Jill M. Caravan, page 7). Even though Gorillas existed for countless ages, even though they were real, to the outside world they were wild brutes of Africa that for all intents and purposes were fairy tale beings. They were “elusive”, said to change form and battle elephants with trees they ripped from the ground. Considering that the Sasquatch has been known to the west for a far shorter amount of time, and considering that some physical remains have possibly been found, though never confirmed (Minaret skull, “giant” skeletons found in the 1800s, the Mexican Lake Chapala/(Homo erectus?) browridge, and IF it is an ancestor, or IF it is bigfoot itself, Gigantopithecus (Its found in China and we have no remains apart from jawbones and teeth), and, at least for sasquatch and yeti, other physical remains besides bones have been linked to them (hair with DNA, intestinal parasites unknown to any other living thing, etc), we can conclude that the biological reality of sasquatch, and other cryptids with similar evidence on hand, is a good, though uncertain, possibility.

    Plus, we have to look at which argument has a stronger scientific basis: unlike apes, Tulpas are not recognized by science (to prove it, there must be rigorous testing, including whether the human mind is capable of creating physical matter like hair samples, and DNA strands within them, making footprints, etc). An unrecognized ape, scientifically, is more likely to exist than a supernatural thought-form, and you can shoot and examine the carcass of the latter. Not to be pig headed, but that is what the scientific community would want.

    Having said these things, Tulpas or other entities could be behind some sightings (so-called “Hairy Bipeds”, bigfoot-type monsters that defy scientific explanation, such as being in areas where it would be well nigh impossible for a breeding population of big game to survive undetected, being bullet proof, disappearing, and other oddities), but in the supernatural point of view, this could be anything (demonic, ghostly, etc) as well as Tulpas (if they exist).

    And then one has to consider the possibility that some, maybe a large number of cryptids might be based on anything but biological fact or supernatural causation (Hoax/myth/misidentification/escaped exotic animals from zoos circuses labs private owners, etc). Although I take anybody in league with the skeptical inquirer with a grain of salt, there is a book called “Tracking the Chupacabra” written by a fellow associated with that outfit that might (just might) answer that riddle. Don’t quote me on it though.

    And finally, we have to be extra careful in Cryptozoology about tinkering with the supernatural: one of the reasons that Intelligent Design is not considered science by the larger scientific community is that it, to a point, points to possible supernatural causation for the origin of biological information. If Cryptozoology wants to gain more credence, it must keep to natural-based research as much as possible.

    Please don’t take this post as a combative one: i just like to discuss possibilities. :)

  22. Hapa responds:

    BTW:

    Made some goofs in that last post:

    I had the math wrong on the time span of Gorillas evading detection until 1800s (I have read somewhere that Gorillas might have been mentioned in the fifth century BC, but the quote from the Gorilla book was factual)

    I also meant that between apes and Tulpas, you can shoot the former, not the latter.

    Sorry for the Bushisms.

  23. Nick Redfern responds:

    Hapa:

    Many thanks for the comment. I certainly don’t take it as combative. But, instead, I take it as I think it’s meant – namely, a stimulating commentary on this particular debate.

    I do take your point as being valuable re how the Gorilla was perceived as mythologica for centuries.

    However, as I see it, least (doubtless many will disagree!), Bigfoot is seen all across the USA, which is a well-developed nation, technologically advanced, with huge populations, and Bigfoot is still hugely elusive (eerily so, perhaps). And even when Bigfoot is seem rummaging around trailer-parks, or even a relatively short drive from the hustle and bustle of where I live in Arlington, Texas, we still cannot catch the critter.

    You may disagree (and that’s cool, as that’s what debates/forums such as this are for), but to me, there’s a big difference between the Roman era of no cameras, no Net, no instant communication, and today’s world with things like heat-seeking equipment, Google-Earth etc.

    Today’s technology, massively increased populations areas etc, should make it much easier to find Bigfoot…but it doesn’t.

  24. Nick Redfern responds:

    PS: Don’t worry about the Bushisms. LOL. The time we need to worry is when people make Palinisms LOL.

  25. Nominay responds:

    Bigfoot as Tulpas? I have to wonder if the author had seen the X Files episode having to do with Tulpas first, before his imagination ran wild … This is just a lazy and faaaarrrrr (out) reaching theory to excuse away a cryptid issue we’d all love to pretend to have an answer for everything on. There’s a lot we don’t know, and until more than credible, circumstantial evidence comes in, our assumptions are biased. Nick Redfern draws a conclusion on other assumptions he’s made, in spite of its impracticality. Yes, there’s validity to the belief in Tuplas, but it’s rare – again, it’s not like another X Files episode that had to do with Mulder/Scully on the show Cops, where they are chasing monster after monster that people manifest out of fear. Tulpas don’t explain a widespread phenomena anymore than Shapeshifters do. Tulpas, Shapeshifters – these are rare, supernatural occurrences that happen outside of mainstream society and mainstream individuals. Your typical redneck at his hunting lease is not so exotic that he’s going to conjure up a temporary, large hominid out of the foo dust of his mind.

  26. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Thanks Nick for the courtesy of your reply; it’s appreciated.

    Now down to business! …..that last paragraph of mine was written in a light hearted comedic vein; your fantastical theory being surmised as a sort of a last gasp ‘opiate’ for disillusioned crypto-folk.

    I think you are unaware of the compelling body of scientific evidence that actually has been established in recent years that lends credence to sasquatch/bigfoots real flesh & blood existence!

    Briefly… regarding it’s elusive nature: There’s millions of square miles of habitat, a population spread thinly, theorised migration patterns to consider, a mainly nocturnal disposition, always on the move; traversing rough or steep terrain with ease, and not using the footpaths or track ways that humans like to stick to. Their five senses will be razor sharp: when the ‘quiet’ of the forest is disturbed they know ’flight or fight’ or whether to be unconcerned. With human encounters were no confidence has been established they will only purposely draw close under the protective cover of darkness, it’s always ‘flight’ ….sooner or later.

    No bodies discovered? That‘s no surprise, woodsman have spent a lifetime in the woods without ever having seen a dead bear. Nature takes care of corpses in double quick time. It’s a well documented natural phenomenon.

    I repeat a female Sasquatch was filmed in 1967. …The rare and elusive Snow Leopard has also been filmed, and even rarer cats photographed by trail cams in Borneo, we’ve never found bodies. So does that disprove their existence too?

    Not everything is reported. You no doubt form your views as to the viability of their actual physical existence based on information available in the public domain, however my strong feeling is that only a small proportion of information (relative to the whole), is in the domain of either the public, news media, or science. ..You could call it ‘unreported Bigfoot’ if you like, it’s pure supposition on my part, but imagine the broad base of a pyramid; that’s all the unreported stuff. Whether long distance sightings, or terrifying close encounters all with that added social stigma: that reporting the experience is akin to self betrayal; an admission of insanity. So with frayed nerves to whatever degree and all things considered it never gets officially reported beyond family or close friends. I think their are many instances like that.

    No cryptozoologist chases fairytales; the ‘pursuits’ are undertaken with a pioneering spirit and an open mindedness in recognition of the fact that not all species of fauna and flora on Earth have been discovered yet, or are catalogued by science . Every year hundreds of new fauna and flora species ARE discovered on this planet. (and that is no exaggeration).

    Just one example: Here’s a link that will take you to a new species of monkey discovered last year in eastern Myanmar.

    Captain Robert von Beringe and others who believed in the mountain gorillas existence prior to it’s discovery in 1902 weren’t dreamers; they were frontline pioneers with the courage of their convictions, and with hindsight their undertakings were proven to be more grounded in reality than their blinkered and overly sceptical contemporaries back home. The existence of the lowland gorilla despite being proven in 1847 was not easily accepted back home either!

    Until bigfoot/sasquatch is discovered officially; parallels of a sceptical attitude amongst ‘the many‘ remain as it was from all those years ago. Human nature harbours a natural scepticism, so the ’slings and arrows’ will continue to rain down for a while yet!

    Currently as far as I’m aware the worlds rarest gorilla; the Cross River gorilla found in the mountains of Cameroon in Africa is extremely camera shy and has only ever been filmed twice (and the first time was extremely shaky!!!). They are very wary of humans AND KNOW HOW TO KEEP OUT OF THE WAY!!!!

    “These gorillas are extremely wary of humans and are very difficult to photograph or film,” said Dr. Roger Fotso, Director of the WCS’s Cameroon Program. “Eventually we identified and staked out some of the gorillas favorite fig trees, which is where we finally achieved our goal.”

    Those lazy gorillas atop their chosen tree feasting on figs all day were relatively static compared to the perpetually roaming bigfoot and yet they have proven so illusive to being captured on film. I’ve seen the film and the stabilised Patterson footage is better!!!

    I imagine that Bigfoot’s senses have also been honed over the millennia to allow them to maintain distance between themselves and humans too!!!

  27. CDC responds:

    Reality is…there is no such thing as a Bigfoot, simple.

    The Patterson/Gimlin film was 44 years ago…nothing even close to that in 44 years. Freeman? Nope, nothing!

    As I explained to “dermal”, Matt Crowley put Jimmy Chilcut out of the Bigfoot business in 2005. The “we don’t need a body to put a guy in jail”, may sound dramatic, but reality is, we DO need a body to put a Bigfoot in the science and zoology books.

    Humans have hunted countless animals into extinction all over the world. The Dodo, Stellar’s ses cow, Tasmanian tiger, California Grizzly, Passenger pigeon, and on and on. Hunting in North America has been going on since before Columbus came to the New World to today. Here in North America…that’s millions of hunters killing millions of animals over the years.

    You all know that at least ONE BIGFOOT should have been killed by hunters by now. Not one fur, one skeleton, not any bones at all, NOTHING has ever been found or killed ANYWHERE in North America.

    I want Bigfoot to be real more than any of you…I have been wanting it since I was a kid in the 60′s when the news first came out that they actually filmed one.

    BUT, I want it to be “REAL”, not “created” by “JUNK” evidence and hearsay testimony. No footprints, no grainy film, no random hairs, nope, none of that.

    “IF” it is out there, we will find it…the fact that we have not, tells me it’s not there.

    I still convince myself that a remnant population of decendants of Gigantopitecus may still be hiding in the thick woods of Canada. Isolated relic populations may still use unpopulated corridors in the mid western United State to migrate south during winters.

    But at this point in my life…I realize it is only a good story. I know it’s not out there, just hate to put a sad ending to that great story.

  28. Hapa responds:

    Mr Redfern:

    Thank you for the reply.

    Yes Bigfoot/Sasquatch is seen in almost every state, if not in every one (similar creatures were talked about on Hawaii (Loren Coleman/Mark Hall’s “True Giants”), and as I mentioned before there is a subcategory of such beasts called hairy bipeds that in many ways agree with the Tulpa theory, or for any supernatural/extraterrestrial/extra dimensional-universal being. And some of these unusual encounters have occurred in the Pacific northwest, where most sightings don’t have a supernatural tint to it (at least in location). And likewise the United states is very populous, the third largest population in the world (China and India still outdo us), though some places are still remote, or intended to be (Texas’ Big thicket is an inhospitable area with Bigfoot sightings that comes to mind, and let’s not forget the great wilderness of Alaska), and Canada is both the second largest nation in the world with only a fraction of the American Population. Still, I also agree that biological Bigfoot creatures don’t inhabit every state or every country on earth. I just see other avenues of thought concerning such a mass number of encounters in the States alone (Misidentified Bears and escaped apes, hairy poor folk or mountain men in animal skins, hoaxers, hunters or snipers dressed in Gillie suits (Gillie or Ghillie?), hallucinations (LSD), Legends and folklore (based on real creatures or not) spread through verbal transmission far and wide, etc) before I would think of supernatural causes.

    What I’m trying to say is, if we take the supernatural road, or for that matter something akin to a more lets say just paranormal, then it drifts away from being science (though the ET angle would fall into Xenobiology, and extra-universal/dimensional beings might be considered by some physicists, but even then the word Pseudoscience would be tossed around). And also if we consider these creatures to possibly being Tulpas, we have to consider other supernatural possibilities (demonic) which could make this research a scientific impossibility, at least with current advances (we may one day be able to examine supernatural beings (or beings once thought supernatural, like Gorillas) in the lab: but with supernatural beings, science is stopped.

    However, there are occurrences, like perhaps some of the hairy biped stuff, that seem to scream truly paranormal, or indeed supernatural (a good case in point is the invisible assailant phenomena, where people have supposedly been attacked, killed, even blown up by seemingly invisible beings or powers, and exorcisms). So I consider some supernatural causation a possibility in some Cryptids.

    As a Christian, I believe in the Supernatural, and could see where phantom forces could have a hand in some unusual phenomena (Phantom Clowns, Hairy Bipeds, even some UFOs). But once again, if the supernatural is invoked, we can find ourselves back to that church movie, where the message was “Paranormal=bad. Not investigating it=good for our spiritual health”, and thus a dark age-science killer.

    PS: have you encountered the idea before that UFOs were Demonic?

  29. Hapa responds:

    BTW: Good one on Palinisms LOL

  30. Nick Redfern responds:

    Nominay:

    You say: “Your typical redneck at his hunting lease is not so exotic that he’s going to conjure up a temporary, large hominid out of the foo dust of his mind.”

    I’m sure your sweeping statement on certain members of the US public will provoke some commentary. “Typical redneck…” “not exotic…” Hmmm.

    How about if I started on about “Typical church-goers,” or “Typical cops.” You could have worded things better.

    Also, why do you assume they would be responsible for producing the Tulpa? No-one is saying that, and certainly not me. The Tulpa theory (for a theory is all it is, as I have consistently said) is that when created, they can maintain a quasi-form of existence and be seen BY OTHERS. It’s not just the creator who may be exposed to them.

    You also say: “Nick Redfern draws a conclusion…” Dead wrong. I am offering an opinion and a theory as to why cryptids are totally elusive and consistently always one-step ahead of us – always.

    Tomorrow, someone just might shoot a Bigfoot and I’ll be up there with everyone else marvelling at the evidence. But, I’m not holding my breath. It would be interesting if someone wrote a paper on all the reports on record where someone has shot at a Bigfoot – and consistently failed to kill it every single time.

  31. Nick Redfern responds:

    dermal ridges are proof:

    You say: “No bodies discovered? That‘s no surprise, woodsman have spent a lifetime in the woods without ever having seen a dead bear. Nature takes care of corpses in double quick time. It’s a well documented natural phenomenon.”

    So what if most woodsmen never see a dead bear? That doesn’t take away the fact that we DO see and find dead bear, and we do find and catch live bear. And we tag bear, we put them in zoos, and people who are trying to desperately appear macho and tough have bear heads mounted on their walls.

    So, if we can do all this with bear, with mountain lion, we should be able to do it with Bigfoot, particularly so when these creatures live in the SAME LOCATIONS!

    You also say: “Briefly… regarding it’s elusive nature: There’s millions of square miles of habitat, a population spread thinly, theorised migration patterns to consider, a mainly nocturnal disposition, always on the move; traversing rough or steep terrain with ease, and not using the footpaths or track ways that humans like to stick to.”

    I understand that, and it’s a reasonable point to make. But, for me, it’s let down by one thing. It’s reliant on Bigfoot never, ever (and I do mean EVER) screwing up, making a mistake and exposing itself to someone with a gun, or a huge truck that turns it into mush.

    Bigfoot is often seen running across the road – it never slips as it’s running, falls down, and gets hit or killed. Bigfoot gets shot by people in the woods (there are many such reports), but still no luck in killing it.

    You do indeed make valid points about why Bigfoot is so elusive. But it’s flawed because we should see at least 1 or 2 errors on the part of the creature that blows its cover, and turns up a corpse.

    How many times a day in your life, my life, everyone’s life, does something unpredictable happen? The electric goes out, you get a flat tire on the way to work, you slip on the ice and break an ankle etc etc. Bigfoot, on the other hand, is amazing not just because of what it appears to be, how it looks etc. It’s also amazing because its existence seems to be curiously free of the unpredictability that should (even just once) have exposed it with a body.

  32. flame821 responds:

    I don’t think there is anything particularly amazing about not finding a body. They seem to survive in deep forests and swamps, not many humans go out there so that right there lowers the chances. Now if Bigfoot’s sense of smell is even close to that of other animals we humans reek to them. Think of what hunters do to disguise their scent from prey. And, I’m just making up numbers here as I have no database to draw on, say if there are 100 bears for every 1 Bigfoot, that makes it even more unlikely to wander upon one in the woods. Along with the fact that Bigfoot do not seem to be interested in humans the way a bear would be (food, protecting territory). So while a bear MAY approach a human, it seems Bigfoot prefers to run away.

    As for people shooting and not harming it, that would depend on a lot of factors. First, what are they shooting with? If you are prepared for deer and you try shooting a bear you had better be VERY luck or VERY quick on you feet because it is not going to turn out well for you. If Bigfoot is as large and muscular as is often documented you would need some serious firepower to do more than give it a flesh wound. (And I am going under the assumption that its physiology is similar to that of highland gorillas) Add that to the fact that MOST people would be caught off guard to suddenly see a human shape in the woods and I would sincerely hope they would hesitate for a good couple of seconds to make sure they weren’t lining up a fellow hunter in their sights. Plus I imagine, simply by our own nature, it goes against us to shoot at something that looks that much like us (ie, are you SURE its not another hunter, do you want to murder some idiot in the woods).

    All these things can easily combine to make it difficult to shoot and kill a Bigfoot. And even if someone does manage to do this, how do they intend to bring the body back with them? Short of hacking it to pieces and dragging an oilskin bag behind them (trailing blood in the wood and bringing predators). Most hunters dress their kill in the woods (gutting and bleeding) to make it easier (lighter) to bring back and preserve the meat.

    As for stumbling across a corpse I’ve addressed that higher up in the thread but I do have an addition. If someone did stumble across the remains, either corpse or skeletal, would they know what they were? I wouldn’t expect someone to know the difference between a hominid rib and a bear rib, between the femur of a NAPE and that of a deer. And if you’ve ever come across the fleshy corpse of any animal it tends to stink to high heaven; most people are going to avoid going anywhere near it at all, much less go in for a closer look.

    I’m not saying that your theory is any more or less valid than any other theory put out there, but I can see real, mundane reasons as for why we don’t have a corpse yet. As for the corpses of sea monsters, dead things sink and tend to get eaten by other animals. And the chance of a scuba diver happening across the articulated body of a sea monster (provided they have bones and not just cartilage) is even less likely than someone stumbling upon a Bigfoot.

  33. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    WOW, this post really got a lot of you guys spooled up!!

    I respect Mr. Redfern’s baseless theory, but I do not agree with it. I will say this to anyone interested in hearing it, when people believe so deeply in one theory, even this one, there is no point in arguing any other theory with them. In his mind that is the undisputed truth. None of us can change that. Yes I agree it is odd that no Bigfoot body has ever been found. However, in my opinion that is because we have not discovered the answer yet, but one day, I think we will.

    I had never heard the Tulpa theory before and I did not know there were folks out there that actually believe these things exist. So, I learned something new. See, even I got something positive from this post.

  34. Nick Redfern responds:

    Whiteriverfisherman:

    You say of my views on Tulpas: “In his mind that is the undisputed truth.”

    Huh????

    Go back and read my original article. I actually said of the Tulpa theory that, it’s a “theory” (yes, I used the word “theory” not “fact” or “truth.”) for which, quote, “I have a great deal of time.”

    Having a great deal of time for a theory is very different from (as you put the words in my mouth), accepting it as “the undisputed truth.”

    I struggle with the flesh and blood angle because of the total lack of even one corpse throughout the entirety of Bifoot research and recorded history. But, if a body turns up tomorrow, I fully accept this will totally negate the Tulpa theory.

    How can we accept anything about Bigfoot as being the undisputed truth when we don’t have one to study? We can’t. Which is why I’m very careful to use words like “theory.”

    That’s very different to you incorrectly saying: “In his mind that is the undisputed truth.”

  35. Nick Redfern responds:

    flame821:

    So, we never find a Bigfoot body because they live in swamps and deep forests? Bears live in forests and we find them. Alligators live in swamps and we find them.

    As for bullets, we always only ever manage to give it flesh wounds? People give bears flesh wounds, but they also kill bears. Why with Bigfoot, is it always just flesh wounds and never, ever a fatal shot?

    With not a single successful attempt to shoot and kill Bigfoot, and with not a single body found to confirm its existence (in the very locales where we routinely find other large animals) this beast has to be the luckiest critter around. With luck like that, it should be buying a lottery ticket.

  36. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    I’m open minded enough to believe in aspects of the paranormal… …but as is obvious; I believe bigfoot/sasquatch is part of the natural world as an animal not officially recognised by science.

    You have used some of my supposition as a springboard for your own supposition borne out of your ’no body’ exasperation!

    I would never want to get bogged down in a discussion based purely on supposition, that’s a fruitless road to exhaustion. …and I need to conserve my energy!

    Why don’t you look at the science available for the ‘physical existence’ of sasquatch/bigfoot, and try to evaluate or debunk it in a rational fashion; specifically point by point?

    I’ve raised one or two points, leading you into areas of science; but those you’ve left well alone with no detailed counter argument to disprove the positive; they are like doors you do not wish to enter; they represent potential persuasive arguments based on science that you fear perhaps you will be unable to refute.

    As a starter why not try Dr. Meldrums 2007 ground breaker: ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA?

    Flying in the face of actual physical scientific evidence collected (which you are seemingly oblivious to) ; it’s tenuous indeed to use your ‘no body’ argument as the pivotal and decisive factor in suggesting the physicality of sasquatch/bigfoot is unlikely.

    Often ‘hard boiled’ sceptics with the self assuredness their ‘selective vision’ creates, choose not to evaluate any accrued, bona fide scientific data; like all sceptics ‘talk is so very cheap’ and can flow very easily in a negative vein, it’s so very easy to give negatives in a casual fashion as a reply to anything!

    Merrily Merrily the sceptic paints with his broad brush, a bristly slap in the face to every genuine witness and scientist that has borne testimony to the physical presence of bigfoot out in the field.

    As an intriguing aside: …..Bigfoot/Sasquatch is smelled as much as seen, indeed smelled before seen! ….A legendary stinker; he‘s gotten up so many peoples noses (this is the real terror!!!) So my question is: according to your views do Tulpas or projected figments of the imagination (spectral bigfoot if you like) smell? …not unlike some sort of a smelly hologram? How do you reconcile this much recorded aspect of bigfoot encounters with the ‘non-physical entity’ explanation such as you put forward?

  37. flame821 responds:

    Not to beat a dead horse, but have you ever gone hunting? Do you understand the difference between the power differential between the types and styles of rifle that can be used? Add to that the difference that particular ammo makes? Try shooting a raccoon with a bb gun and see where that gets you. (actually don’t anyone try that, you’ll get your face ripped off, I’m just saying that to make a point).

    Many people do NOT bring a bear down with a single shot, and when they do bring down a bear it isn’t from ‘ghah! what is that, shoot it’. As I mentioned earlier and I noticed you overlooked; it goes against human nature to kill one of your own. We are a social species and MOST of us tolerate our fellow humans and don’t shoot willy nilly at anything that even vaguely resembles a human. Personally I would NEVER go into the woods with a hunter that was trigger happy. I would rather miss the shot and the venison steaks than accidentally shoot another person.

    Also, as many police and self-defense instructors (and even JJ Bittenbender) will tell you, the chance of someone shooting you as you are moving is pretty slim, chance of them hitting you in a vital area while you are running is ALMOST zero. So unless a particularly accurate, trigger happy hunter is roaming the woods at night with his rifle at the ready, safety off and has no issues what so ever at shooting at anything that might move, no I don’t honestly think we will ever get a body.

    As for the coyote roaming into town and how they don’t always get away.

    1) consider what I said about shooting at anything that looks human.
    2) How many people living in the city are armed and ready to shoot at a moment’s notice (Granted you live in Texas so the number is probably higher than most). I am assuming that animal control was called out to handle the situation; it was done in a limited area and that traps and poison were also used.

    I know that the firearms would be one of the last resorts because you can never guarantee where the bullet will end up if, by chance, it misses its mark. One of the first things you are (or should be) taught when you go hunting is to make sure there is something behind the target to catch the bullet should you miss. We had a horrible situation here a few years ago where a hunter forgot this basic rule, his bullet missed, went several hundred feet and hit a pregnant woman in the head as she was getting out of her car in her parent’s driveway.

  38. Nick Redfern responds:

    dermal ridges are proof:

    Re your points:

    1. “Exasperation” is far, far too strong a term to use re my issue with the lack of a body! I find the lack of any body (ever, aside from people who claim to have see bodies, but that never ever appear) intriguing and interesting. Being exasperated by the lack of a body would imply some near-emotion driven obsession with Bigfoot. Bigfoot interests me because it’s a puzzle that does not seem to operate like a regular animal. But, I leave exasperation for things like bills, when my car breaks down, you know: general stuff. No-one should be getting overly emotional about Bigfoot as it will cloud judgment.

    2. When you ask about why don’t I look at the available science, I do. It’s not like my bookshelves only contain books by the likes of Keel etc who looked at issues like Tulpas. I’m aware of the scientific findings. But I’m equally aware that no matter how much science goes into this, we only ever get so far. People may disagree with me, but in my opinion (and an opinion is all it can be) we should have in our possesion at least one body (not just testimony of people who said they saw, found bodies, shot and killed Bigfoot etc). Really, that’s my main crux: animals do die in the woods and are sometimes found. Animals do make mistakes, or unanticipated things happen. Bigfoot seems to skilfully ensure that despite some intriguing scientific findings (I don’t dispute that), we never ever get past that hurdle of getting the undeniable proof: a body. So, that’s why, as well as following the scientific aspects of Bigfoot research, I also follow more esoteric aspects too.

    3. You say: “I’ve raised one or two points, leading you into areas of science; but those you’ve left well alone with no detailed counter argument to disprove the positive; they are like doors you do not wish to enter; they represent potential persuasive arguments based on science that you fear perhaps you will be unable to refute.”

    I can’t disprove it that’s why. I can only offer my thoughts as to why the whole issue of a lack of a Bigfoot body is illogical. I fear I’ll be unable to refute whay you say? Dude: this is Bigfoot research. We’re not curing cancer or preventing the outbreak of WWIII! I am interested in the Bigfoot phenomenon. But fearing I won’t be able to refute something about Bigfoot is laughable. Bigfoot is an interest of mine. It’s not like my life depends on worrying about if I can refute or support someone else’s theories about a subject that attracts a minority! Bigfoot interests me. It doesn’t obsess me or keep me awake at night, and I certainly have no need to worry about fearing this or fearing that about Bigfoot!

    Could a Tulpa smell? Maybe! Is it testable? Nope, not at all. That’s why it’s a theory to me. But to whole swathes of Bigfooters, the flesh-and-blood angle is not a theory. It’s an already-decided-upon fact.

  39. Nick Redfern responds:

    Flame821:

    No I don’t go hunting. But I do go targeting shooting. I enjoy blasting things into oblivion. I fully agree with what you say about whether this or gun or that gun could have an effect on Bigfoot. And I know there are reports of Bigfoot being killed, but we never get to see the corpse. We just get to here the story that there WAS a corpse. But, I come back to what I have said before: Bears get shot – and often they dont die from getting shot. But sometimes they do die from getting shot. Why does Bigfoot NEVER die from getting shot?

  40. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Nick Redfern:-

    Current scientific evidence = proof of flesh & blood existance of a yet uncatalogued species of bipedal primate(s).

    ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA
    Lets have your specific comments on the above!!!

    I think in your mind you have condensed the vast areas of wilderness down into a small ’shooting gallery’ like some sort of simplistic arcade game without considering any of the variables involved, in doing so you’ve also reduced the odds of a kill to further suit your argument. Besides, hunters aren’t trigger happy maniacs; lets consider perhaps their psychological inability to pull the trigger when it’s clearly a humanoid figure in the rifle sights. Maybe it’s as good as having the safety catch on! Otherwise the hunter might feel he was about to commit a regrettable act, on a par with murder.

    I think one being shot dead or run over by a vehicle IS possible; but in my opinion it’s long odds. But who’s to say it hasn’t happened already with people involved? “What shall we do with the body?” they might say, (if they stuck around!) ….and it may all depend on what kind of people were involved and what emotions prevailed. A decision would be taken from a choice of options, and as I’ve said, not all ‘happenings’ or events filter through to the public domain.

    You only have to listen to the news on the TV or radio to realise we live in a world of ‘cover ups’ people desperate (on numerous kinds of issues or activities) not wanting things to come to light, to avoid either prosecution, persecution, ridicule, or through being introverted or shy, not wanting to be in the public spotlight at all.

    Lots of people do not naturally gravitate towards the ‘bright lights’ of publicity, nor have any wish to. Nor to turn their personal experiences into cash.

    I don’t know what the true odds are for ‘finding a body‘, but I do believe in the law of averages. So maybe one day the truth of the matter will be revealed either by a corpse discovered, or more likely an excellent photograph of repute, or a defining film or video …just like in 67.

  41. Nick Redfern responds:

    dermal ridges are proof:

    I don’t dispute there are tracks. I don’t dispute there are photos. I don’t disupte tree-knocking or weird screams in the woods. I don’t even dispute the so-called “Bigfoot Teepees.” I’ve found a few of the latter (with local paranormal researcher Lance Oliver in the woods at Lake Ray Roberts, Texas – not too far from Dallas – in 2008, where Bigfoot had been seen). But I find it very puzzling, however, that on each and every occasion when we find the above things, it never translates into a body or a captured living entity – ever.

    Each week millions and millions of people enter buy Lottery tickets. Most of those millions never, ever win. But, most weeks, one person out of those tens of millions will win. Don’t you find it incredible that (as history has demonstrated) you actually have a better chance of being the sole number one winner of the Lottery than being able to provide a corpse of Bigfoot? That is, without doubt, incredible. But, thus far, it’s true.

    Most weeks, someone – somewhere – wins a Lottery. Every week, no-one – anywhere – catches a Bigfoot.

    You say: “I think one being shot dead or run over by a vehicle IS possible; but in my opinion it’s long odds.”

    Why is it long odds? There are numerous, NUMEROUS!, reports of Bigfoot seen racing across the road! It should get hit at least once.

    You say:

    “I think one being shot dead or run over by a vehicle IS possible; but in my opinion it’s long odds. But who’s to say it hasn’t happened already with people involved? “What shall we do with the body?” they might say, (if they stuck around!) ….and it may all depend on what kind of people were involved and what emotions prevailed. A decision would be taken from a choice of options, and as I’ve said, not all ‘happenings’ or events filter through to the public domain.”

    I don’t disagree with this premise. But for your premise to work, it requires such actions (or non-actions) on the parties involved to follow your premise on every single occasion in the history of Bigfoot investigations. Are you really saying that if Bigfoot bodies HAVE been found that on every single occasion (ever) something happened, or intervened, to prevent the body reaching the world at large and demonstrating its reality? Every single time?

    That’s, again, my issue with Bigfoot: I don’t mind if most Bigfoot corpses never turn up to prove the existence of the beast, once and for all. But, I do have a problem with just one corpse NEVER turning up to prove its existence. And that, really, is my main crux in this entire debate: the lack of a corpse or a living speciment of a creature that is immensely big and tall and striding around forests (in some cases) in close proximity to huge, major US cities.

    Yes, I believe in the law of averages too. And in my view, the law of averages suggests with all the attempts to look for Bigfoot, find it, film it, shoot it, track it to its lair etc we should have had success – even if on only one occasion. Bring me a body and I’ll happily change my entire stance – forever. Unfortunately, the reality is that every attempt to secure a body has always ended in failure, or the bullets miss or only cause a flesh wound, or the corpse gets buried and can’t be found, or (for the conspiracy-minded) “the goverment gets there first,” or even if its hit by a car it still manages to hobble away and escape, or…well…or. I could go on and on with my “or’s”. But I won’t.

    The debate over what Bigfoot is or is not (like it or not) will only be solved when Cryptozoology, or the world’s scientific community, has a body or a living specimen to examine. That we don’t, and that it remains an enigma, is why there are forums like this one – people are forced to debate because this theoy or that theory cannot be proven without the one thing everyone wants: a Bigfoot, alive or dead.

    And if we get a body (or preferably a living one that could be released back into its environment), the debate is over. If we continue as things have continued throughout Bigfoot research – namely never a body – Bigfoot will continue to languish in a realm of mystery, controversy and debate, with as many theories as there are for what crashed at Roswell, or the real identity of Jack the Ripper.

  42. Nick Redfern responds:

    Should there be any other posts in this thread, I won’t have net access at the house after tonight until next wednesday, so I’ll reply when have Net access back.

  43. jerrywayne responds:

    Bunkum. Mr. Redfern has conveniently removed the cryptid phenomena from the realm of confirmability to inhabit the swoon of wishful thinking.

    He can then write for profit and believe what he wants without worry or justification, and for mindless entertainment and the tug of quasi-mysticism.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.