When Bigfoot Talks (Kind Of)

Posted by: Nick Redfern on May 3rd, 2013


Over the years, I’ve come across a lot of weird tales, but this one probably beats the lot: it’s my latest Mysterious Universe post.

There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that it’s a story which will polarize readers into two camps: (a) those who find it intriguing; and (B) those who think it’s garbage and not even worthy of comment. As for middle-ground? I’d say no way; there is none. You either go with these type of stories or you don’t.

So, if that has caught your attention, here’s the story, and here’s how it begins:

“It’s fair to say that I’m not just a regular recipient of strange tales of a supernatural nature. Just occasionally, I’m the recipient of tales that easily exceed what could be termed strange. I’m talking about those distinctly rogue cases that veer into territories where a researcher is forced to take one of two views: (a) what the witness reported simply did not happen; or (b) some of the mysterious things that people such as me chase down are not just weird. They’re beyond weird. The following case is a perfect example of the latter.

“It came to me a few years ago from a couple named Donnie and Lynne, a thirty-something pair originally from Tulsa, who were living on the fringes of Oklahoma City when I interviewed them. March 8, 2007, Donnie told me, marked the couple’s second wedding anniversary. And, as keen outdoors-people with a love of nature, they decided to avoid the typical vacation resorts that would normally spring to mind, and instead decided to spend nine days deep in the heart of the grand Ouachita National Forest. The decision was one they would later come to bitterly regret.”

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.

4 Responses to “When Bigfoot Talks (Kind Of)”

  1. Goodfoot responds:

    I’m aware of similar stories. And, since my lone definite Bigfoot experience entails hearing (but not seeing – I was paralyzed, though I wouldn’t exactly call it fear) what I took to be a family group speak to one another over a few minutes’ time, I’m not going to dispute it.

  2. DWA responds:

    “There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that it’s a story which will polarize readers into two camps: (a) those who find it intriguing; and (B) those who think it’s garbage and not even worthy of comment. As for middle-ground? I’d say no way; there is none. You either go with these type of stories or you don’t.”

    See, no. There’s this middle ground. It’s called “critical thinking.” In fact, (a) might actually be considered this way, but it isn’t. This is potentially disastrous to scientific endeavor, as I will show anon.

    The fundamental problem of the 21st century – which has leached into every aspect of our lives, from science and technology to The Big Questions – is the failure of critical thinking. Scientists may be surprised to find that they are a primary cause of the problem.

    Most scientific endeavor moves incrementally from what is known to what follows from what is known, to create an expansion of what is known. It has been called, understandably if a bit incorrectly, “piling certainty on certainty to come up with certainty.” That’s not quite it. But it is this: taking what scientists know; incorporating “new” observations with which they are comfortable; postulating theories to explain the “new” observations, again extrapolating from what is known; and moving from theory to expanded scientific canon.

    The problem comes when the “new” observations are things scientists aren’t comfortable with. Things like, you know, bigfoot, compounded in this instance with something that sounds clearly woo-woo, OK, paranormal.

    Then we see two polarized extremes as in (a) and (b) above, with no middle ground. My problem is with (a).

    As written: THAT’S THE MIDDLE GROUND! That’s Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz talking. That’s:

    This is interesting. I’m not “a believer.” But as a scientist, there are things in this new observation that I find, yes, intriguing. Using what I know, I can see that the things I find intriguing, I have reason to, as this new observation may be, yes, totally explainable in terms of what we know. That’s interesting.

    And what happens? “This is intriguing” becomes “I am a Believer Who Has Gone Over To The Dark Side.” Which is, of course, the true (a), I Swallow This Hook Line And Sinker.

    It is disastrous to scientific endeavor when new observations with which scientists just don’t bother to make themselves comfortable get reduced to toddler-level oscillations between raging uncritical advocacy and raging uncritical disbelief. And simple curiosity gets automatically tarred with the former brush.

  3. airforce47 responds:


    Interesting post. I’ve encountered this kind of thing myself personally and I have no explanation for it as it’s beyond our current understanding.

    It happened in August of 2010 and in June of 2011 a different specimen ran us out of the same camp in the early evening with intimidation so go figure.

    We’ll need to wait to see if Dr. Ketchum’s DNA analysis holds up until 2017 and if so then microbiology tools will enable us to take a good and long look at the paternal DNA. If we can’t find a match perhaps it may be shown to be not of the Earth.

    If so then we’ll have a clearer understanding of some of these odd things. My best,

  4. Fhqwhgads responds:

    “intriguing: engaging the interest to a marked degree : fascinating”

    Sure, there’s a middle ground — actually, any number of possible middle grounds. A good example would be the interest I have with a weather forecast. I rarely find it fascinating or have it engage my interest to a marked degree, yet at the same time it’s not garbage unworthy of being mentioned.

    In this case, probably the best middle ground is a noncommittal “huh.” It’s a reasonable reaction to file this kind of story away for future reference without adopting a final explanation at this point. I can easily come up with a half dozen possibilities, some of which I think more likely than others, but I have no reason to commit to any of them.

    I do notice, though, that Donnie and Lynne assume that the telepathic voice was coming from the Bigfoot, but the words spoken by that voice in the story do not unambiguously indicate that they come from the Bigfoot.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.