Sasquatch Coffee


Cryptids Are Not Totally Elusive, Actually

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 7th, 2011

Colleague and associate Nick Redfern, a well-known author of mostly UFO works, unfortunately makes the simple mistake that so many people who are not truly cryptozoological in their thinking make (as noted here). He seems to be reversing definitions, 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 they are not elusive, but physically known to humans, reveals them, of course, as animals (unless they aren’t ~ see here).

Nevertheless, such incredible absolute statements like the following are made by Nick:

“If Bigfoot is just a large, unclassified ape then we would surely have secured the evidence in support of such a scenario by now.”

“Every single attempt to secure physical evidence of the monsters in question has ended in nothing but complete failure.”

“If there’s one thing that all of the many and varied creatures that fall under the banner of Cryptozoology have in common … it’s their overwhelming, eerie elusiveness.”

Talking of Bigfoot, Nick remarkably says things like: “Footprints vanish in the snow, as if the creature itself has vanished too….”

All of this is supernatural myth-making, apparently issuing during this era of frustration.

First of all, former creatures, monsters and cryptids are found all the time and only disappear as “cryptids” from us into Science. We call them “animals,” “new species,” and “rediscovered genera.” Nick makes the same errors committed by a few zoologists who refuse to acknowledge that several newly discovered animals are former cryptids, have been pursued for years, and when found are, mysteriously, forgotten to have been part of cryptozoology.

Elusive? Yes, of course, until found. Footprints do not vanish. Footprints and physical evidence for Bigfoot, for example, are found all the time. Some of this not-so-elusive evidence strongly indicates the animals being pursued, called Bigfoot, Orang Pendek and Yeti that leave hair and fecal samples, are primates. A majority of the sightings, however, are misidentifications, and there is not one bit of supernatural explanation needed to deal with that.

Therefore, when Nick says things like “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,” he is merely just choosing to ignore the long history of discovered cryptids. He seems to have developed the same form of amnesia as the debunkers, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, and other commentators who refuse to observe the long history of romantic zoology and cryptozoology, which has resulted in new animal discoveries.

Ivan T. Sanderson taught me well, and I shall never forget his caution to avoid using an intangible to explain a tangible. Nick would do well to examine the logic of his thoughts on this matter, and realize that cryptozoology succeeds all the time, whether people forget about the achievements or not. Nature finds a way to reveal itself, more often than not.

Loren Coleman

Cryptids Are Not Totally Elusive, Actually

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


18 Responses to “Cryptids Are Not Totally Elusive, Actually”

  1. rickodemilo responds:

    Is there a point where, for example, if Bigfoot has not yet been discovered or proven to be real people will agree it does not exist? With modern technology it seems like there has to be a point where everyone will have to agree there is nothing out there if it hasn’t been found.

  2. Redrose999 responds:

    Well said Loren.

  3. hawksblood1 responds:

    Well from one that was three feet from one. Many people like to talk. That is just what it is. People that came close to one know they are real. So all the ones that did not, how can you say anything. Can you prove there is a GOD, can anyone, but much of the world believe in It?

    To say they are monkeys is another stupid statement. I was looking at something about 7-8 feet height. I had to look up. It was standing and looking very much like a super strong man, but big and hairy. It was nothing related to a monkey. People should not say anything until they are next to one. The same as a UFO or alien until you see one you really have nothing to say other then you did not see one.

  4. Damien Brunk via Facebook responds:

    i think maybe what he meant by saying the footprints disappear as if the creature itself disappeared is that in some cases the footprints seem to stop suddenly like whatever it was just disappeared or took flight ect..i could be wrong but thats what i took from the comment i dont think he meant that a footprint is there one second and then suddenly gone the next

  5. Brian Reily via Facebook responds:

    People like this really irk me. I chose to focus my education towards insects, specifically beetles, in part because of the sheer number of estimated extant species yet to be discovered. Sure, they aren’t 8-foot tall apes, but the basic concept remains the same: there are still undiscovered and unclassified species out there. Just because something is elusive doesn’t mean its non-existent, and trace evidence is still evidence FOR the existence of a species.

  6. Nick Redfern responds:

    Brian

    I never in my post made any comment to the effect that these creatures do not exist. I was addressing the nature of that existence: flesh-and-blood or something weirder. I stand by what I said: there’s something very odd about the fact that certain categories of Cryptid constantly elude us in terms of undeniable hard evidence and a lack of a corpse. The Bigfoot-type creatures (whether Sasquatch, Yeren, Yowie etc), the large winged-things, sea-serpents, and lake-monsters are masters at eluding us. Absolute masters. Or, they are not what they appear to be. But they are “something.” Of that, there’s no doubt. You seem to think that because I hold with the Tulpa theory that means I consider these things to be (as you word it) “non-existent.” I never, ever said that. They exist – but it’s the nature of that existence I question.

  7. flame821 responds:

    The lack of a corpse is not surprising at all. In the woods with scavengers, flies, bacteria, exposed to weather a corpse would last MAYBE 2 weeks tops, the bones a bit longer but as they are no longer articulated they would be moved, either by predators/scavengers or by weather, some would be covered up with leaf litter.

    Think about the amount of deer in the woods, the amount of bears. How often have you stumbled upon a corpse in the wilderness? And this is going under the supposition that Bigfoot-type creatures do not bury their dead as our ancestors learned to do. I don’t have near enough information to make a guess as to their society mores. I do know from several sightings that they are seen to move in family groups, but that is normal for most mammals, at least until her young reach a certain point of maturity.

    While there is not enough evidence to discount the ‘not completely of flesh and blood’ theory, I’m afraid it sounds a bit too much like the stories of the Fae and Sidhe to be taken even a little bit seriously by science, which is one of the things we want to do. Get scientific recognition and hopefully Federal protection for any NAPES in the USA and Canada.

  8. Nick Redfern responds:

    flame821:

    You say: “Think about the amount of deer in the woods, the amount of bears. How often have you stumbled upon a corpse in the wilderness? And this is going under the supposition that Bigfoot-type creatures do not bury their dead as our ancestors learned to do.”

    Yes, it’s true that we don’t often stumble across corpses of deer or bear in the woods. But, the important thing is that is DOES happen. The dfference with Bigfoot is it NEVER, EVER happens.

    Yes, Bigfoot – if flesh-and-blood – may indeed bury their dead. We bury our dead, but circumstances often dictate that someone (a human, I mean) dies under unpredictable circumstances where the body/skeleton is found years later.

    Why do the Bigfoot NEVER die under unpredicatable circumstances where the body, as a result, does NOT get buried?

  9. Nick Redfern responds:

    Brian:

    Another question: what exactly do you mean by “people like this”? People who dare to suggest that Bigfoot may not be all that it appears to be? Or something more?

  10. springheeledjack responds:

    Again, I think the biggest issue is environment. With the water cryptids–if we’re looking at a lake level population, while yes, they’re confined to a specific area, most lakes that report critters are fairly large…which to me gives credence to their existence, because there’s enough space, food, area to hide, etc. for a population to survive.

    If we’re talking about the ocean, well that’s a fish of a whole different tail. We’re talking about pure luck in getting a look at something, let alone getting proof. And as I learned, in our current world, most ships follow shipping lanes which means there are huge expanses of ocean where ships and boats never even go anymore…plenty of place for species to keep away from humanity.

    As for Bigfoot, again, I think we’re after something extremely intelligent…not your run of the mill snake, bird or even bear. Animals have intelligence, and adaptability going for them, but if BF is anywhere close to our intelligence level (and if he/she’s on par with us or dare I say better?:)), that combined with its ability to adapt to its environment gives it an incredible advantage over humanity. Bigfoot knows its environment ten times better than us because that’s its home…yes even intrepid explorers and outdoors-people. Given other possibilities such as acute smell, hearing, etc. it may (and from the accounts it certainly seems this is so) be aware of us invading its home long before we become aware of it. And that alone would account for such few sightings after so many years and expeditions.

    And I think the number one advantage Bigfoot has over humanity is humanity’s own sense of superiority. I said this in the other post, but I think it bears repeating. Humanity believes its the smartest, toughest thing on the planet, so how could something exist alongside us and escape our notice, domination, and will?

    Perhaps we’re not the bestest after all.

  11. Nick Redfern responds:

    springheeledjack:

    You say: “…With the water cryptids–if we’re looking at a lake level population, while yes, they’re confined to a specific area, most lakes that report critters are fairly large…which to me gives credence to their existence, because there’s enough space, food, area to hide, etc. for a population to survive.”

    This is actually a misconception -the idea that most lakes reputed to hide unknown animals are large. I recommed you check out some of the good books that have been written about lake-monsters in Ireland. Some of those dozens of lakes (if you can call them that!) are ridiculously small! Yet, there are many reports of long-necked animals rising up out of absurdly small bodies of water in Ireland – some barely a couple of hundred feet, or smaller!

    You say: “If we’re talking about the ocean, well that’s a fish of a whole different tail. We’re talking about pure luck in getting a look at something, let alone getting proof. And as I learned, in our current world, most ships follow shipping lanes which means there are huge expanses of ocean where ships and boats never even go anymore…plenty of place for species to keep away from humanity.”

    But, in answer to this issue, why is it ALWAYS the sea-serpents that elude capture or killing in the oceans? Whales don’t. Dolphins don’t. Squid don’t. Eels don’t. But sea-serpents do. Always. If we can catch all these other animals in the oceans, why not sea-serpents too? Just once will satisfy me.

    You say: “As for Bigfoot, again, I think we’re after something extremely intelligent…not your run of the mill snake, bird or even bear. Animals have intelligence, and adaptability going for them, but if BF is anywhere close to our intelligence level (and if he/she’s on par with us or dare I say better?:)), that combined with its ability to adapt to its environment gives it an incredible advantage over humanity. Bigfoot knows its environment ten times better than us because that’s its home…yes even intrepid explorers and outdoors-people. Given other possibilities such as acute smell, hearing, etc. it may (and from the accounts it certainly seems this is so) be aware of us invading its home long before we become aware of it. And that alone would account for such few sightings after so many years and expeditions.”

    That’s entirely possible. But, even if Bigfoot is highly developed, and is just a biological entity, it should occasionally screw up, or something unpredictable should occur in its environment. We are highly advanced creatures, but every day we are blighted by unpredictability that massively changes people’s lives. Someone is having a great time playing baseball and they drop down dead from a massive heart-attack. Someone leaves the house early to get work early, and ends up getting a flat tire that makes them 45-minutes late. The list, of course, is wide and varied and goes on and on.

    The theory that Bigfoot may actually be highly mentally advanced is a genuinely intriguing one. But, in the same way we are highly advanced and unpredictable things happen, so Bigfoot – if highly advanced – should also face unpredictability at times; arguably, in the harsh world of nature, every single day. And occasionally (just once in recorded history), that should result in death, detection and discovery.

  12. opin responds:

    This is a great discussion, one that paints a line in sand between cryptozoology and fortean zoology. I for one feel that cryptozoology should have nothing to do with the paranormal, since it adds to the “elusiveness” factor and gives many of these creatures a “supernatural” flair where a folkloric tale may be the root cause of the animal. The paranormal is now UFOs, ghosts, and cryptids, all three are now thrown into the same line of “magical” thinking created by latest cultural adaptations caused by the internet and television folklore. All three should be kept deeply rooted in science, not just known science, but adaptable science (i.e., paranormal).

    I was very excited to see my green and red “Cryptids” banner that I used to use on my Paranormal News Insider page which highlighted the big three subjects I mentioned (wish I had more time to focus on it).

  13. korollocke responds:

    There would have to be something concrete by now to prove the existance of the more fantastical cryptids. I would be thrilled to see a lake, sea or river going prehistoric monster. From a safe vantage point of course….

  14. springheeledjack responds:

    Oops, forgot to check back in on the state of this post:)

    I’ve read the books on Ireland’s sea cryptids. I’ve got my own theories on that too, but it involves migration…and perhaps stopovers in smaller bodies of water…that’s my theory…

    As for the oceans, there are still too many variables at play…even with giant squids who live in the depths, aside from the rogue critter washed ashore, it wasn’t until just recently that we’ve actually obtained video footage and carcasses of merit…and we still haven’t landed one of the big boys at 60 feet plus. Unless we know what we’re dealing with, there could be a hundred unknown variables that make intersections with humankind possible. And as I’ve stated, I think we have come across bodies…they just weren’t kept, or left at sea, and so on. I don’t think it’s been important enough for the general population to snag and preserve a body for study…I hope it would happen now, but with people being what they are, who knows.

    If a fishing village actually found a washed up carcass of a serpent, would they get someone from a large city with scientific where with all to come take a look at it, or would they just see if it was usable as a food source, or just forget it and add it to their personal folk lore? I’d bet on one of the latter.

    As for BF, I think that unpredictability you’re talking about is exactly why we have encounters with them at all. I do believe their ability to adapt and use their environment is way above what most of us could accomplish. And I also believe they probably have the skills or natural abilities (smell, hearing, etc.) to be able to become aware of intruders into their environment.

    I think you’re still buying into some of that arrogance that ‘because we’re so capable, how could anything avoid our detection?’ And I think that while we may be at the top of the food chain, we’re still not necessarily the smartest or superior to other species.

    Now, having said all that, I’m going to also give you your due. You’ve spent a whole lot more time out in field research than I have, and I certainly would take what you say about hunting BF in the field with some weighty respect. The fact that you’re entertaining this theory leads me to believe that you’ve hunted to the point that you think something more is going on…hence this series of posts.

    So my next question to you, is alright, you’ve got this theory, so what’s the next step? How do we, or how are you going to take this further and research to start proving this theory and make it a more viable option? If it is a tulpa, how do we move forward?

    If the tulpa theory is true, then we’re looking at the idea that the mind is capable of physical creation in the world…beyond the usual tried and true, of say, I want a job so I go apply for jobs until I land one. You’re talking about physical creation of solid…or at least “real” objects that can be perceived with the senses. Plus also the idea that multiple people together are capable of creating objects, beings, etc. to physically intersect with our world and even be perceived by others.

    Ok, so giving that it’s a possibility, I’m going to assume that these archtype tulpas as I’m going to call them, keep coming back again and again at different times (For example, loch ness was a hotbed of sightings in the 30′s and then again in the 60′s and 70′s). What I’m going to ask is why people keep generating ideas of the same tulpa archtypes over the years and decades, instead of evolving into new ones based on current prevailing culture? Why have BF and Nessie existed for so long as these archtypes instead of evolving and say for example people seeing dragons in the skies, in this century of massive special effect capabilities where people’s imaginations can actually envision dragons more readily? Or high tech monsters like Alien (I suppose Ben Radford would say that’s happened with his version of the chupacabra theory, but that’s a whole other discussion…) or geometric aliens? And so on…

    Now I think we have proverbially gone into the deep end, but it’s alright, I’ve got my swim suit and I can hold my breath a long time…

  15. Nick Redfern responds:

    springheeledjack:

    Yes, that is indeed a theory that attracts a lot of attention re the Irish lake-monsters – that they move from one body of water to another. But if they are doing that (in an area of land the small size of Ireland!) that should actually make them even easier to find, catch or kill.

    It’s one thing to say we can’t find them because they live in deep bodies of water. But if they are regularly moving from one body to another and traveling across land…well…that should make our job much easier. But, of course, it never does…

    When you ask why people would keep generating the same types of Tulpa (water-based creatures, large flying creatures, and large ape-like creatures), I would say the following:

    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 specific 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. Perhaps (via deep, inherited memories) we remember the ancient past, but we don’t consciously realize we remember the ancient past until we bring it into being today…

    Is that just a theory? Yep, of course. But so is everything else about Bigfoot, Nessie, the whole lot of ‘em.

    You say: “I think you’re still buying into some of that arrogance that ‘because we’re so capable, how could anything avoid our detection?’”

    It’s not precisely that. It’s more along the lines of why doesn’t even one Bigfoot corpse ever surface? It’s that simple. Many animals spend their lives avoiding detection from humankind, but we have examples of them in zoos etc. It’s not that Bigfoot avoids detection that bothers me. What bothers me is that Bigfoot avoids detection consistently. Now, in saying that, if people see Bigfoot, then it could be argued it has not avoided detection. But even when it’s seen, it still successfully makes good its escape.

    In the United States of America, the most highly technologically advanced country in the world, and with sightings in pretty much every US state, the idea that flesh-and-blood, 8-foot-tall apes could be living only a couple of hours (maybe even less) from Seattle, from Dallas, from San Antonio, etc etc and consistently with a 100 percent success rate avoid capture, killing, or dying and being found, or an accidental event that exposes just one, throughout the entirety of Bigfoot research, is (for me at least) just stretching credibility too too far.

    Re your comment about being out in the field more than someone else etc: Thanks, but I don’t believe that has any bearing on anything. Here’s what I mean:

    Someone who has just been on one half-day long expedition for Bigfoot in their life has not solved the puzzle or found a body. But, equally, someone who has been on 50 years’ worth of expeditions, including every weekend has not solved the puzzle or found a body. Time spent in the field (short or long, days or decades) has not provided a body.

    It’s rather like a Ufologist being very proud of the fact they they have filing cabinets full of UFO reports and they have spent every saturday night of the last 15 years on a sky-watch. But that extensive time spent looking for UFOs has not resolved (for that person or for anyone) what UFOs are. Neither has extensive searching for Bigfoot. Field research may one day turn up a Bigfoot body, so it should certainly continue. But, numerous man-hours spent does not equal a body found. Numerous man-hours spent, equals one thing: numerous man-hours spent.

    How do we move forward if the Tulpa theory is valid? That’s a very good question! LOL. My personal belief (and granted that’s all it is), is that while the Tulpa phenomenon currently falls into what passes for the “paranormal,” it may one day be shown to be an aspect of science that is not fully understood right now. In the same way that there was a time when electricity was not at all understood, or before the formal classification of x-rays etc.

    So, moving forward may be impossible until we understand and can apply to the search the science that allows us to move forward. Until (or even if, which it may never, ever do) that happens, we may be forever stuck with what has happened since people began reporting and recording Bigfoot sightings – namely that people have weird experiences with Bigfoot, they have close encounters with Bigfoot, they get a semblance of physical evidence, but…NEVER THE ULTIMATE PRIZE.

    The reality is, that’s how it has always been. The harsher reality may be that this is how it will always be, if there is something weirder about Bigfoot than it just being an unclassified ape.

  16. springheeledjack responds:

    I’ve had those feelings before too…at different points in the path of cryptozoology. That, man, how can something like that stay undetected for so long with so many people on the planet, so many eyes and with more people tromping through the woods or along shore lines, leading to that conclusion that there must be something supernatural involved.

    And who knows, maybe that will be the case. However (you knew that word was coming didn’t you? :), I guess I use the same line of logic as you do. Because we don’t understand how something is possible, humanity (and I include myself in that) often attaches those same old “Supernatural” labels to things because until we have the tools or the insights or the compounded education built upon growing ideas, we can’t begin to understand how something can be–my pioneer and the Ferrari analogy.

    With our cryptids, I choose to believe that there are still too many variables at work that we’re not privy too or at least not taking into consideration. They’re like a jigsaw puzzle…except not only do we not have all the pieces, no one’s even sure how many pieces there are in the first place.

    And I know most of the facts too for Bigfoot and especially my water cryptids…the encroaching of human populations and so on. In theory, we should have come across a carcass, body or something solid by now. However, despite our population in the U.S., there’s still a huge amount of square area where people do not regularly go. And the fact that we haven’t snagged a body for science (As I said somewhere in one of these many posts, I think we have come across the “proof” throughout history, but those who have didn’t know what they had or just brushed it off), leads me to believe that we need to knock out a lot more of the variables before we do.

    We don’t know just how big a Bigfoot population could be, what their range may be for migration, do they follow migratory paths based on food, instinct, mating, something else? What is their thinking capacity? What are their sensory capabilities? And so on. When that many variables come into play, it tells me that there’s way more to the picture than what I’m able to see, and it doesn’t rule out a physical creature for me, but just tells me I have to solve more of the puzzle before I can understand how it all comes together.

    And I also look to other examples in the world–new critters are being discovered everyday (I know, it’s the cryptozoologist’s creed…see I have it bad), and even larger things. How about the collossal squid? Or the huge ray they discovered just not too long ago?

    So for me…at least at this time, I believe there’s a solid, living critter out there we haven’t been able to flush out. Same goes for the water cryptids–even those pesky Irish ones…I do really need to get across the Atlantic and do some serious thumping on my own theories.

    However, as you have said, maybe in time, as other theories of time and space are explored, maybe we will be able to give more credence to things like tulpas.

    And on that subject, if the human mind, and perhaps the collective human mind has the power to bring into being these forms like tulpas and thought forms, etc. might that collective mind also be able to permanently etch them into our world…as real creatures. in essence, if we have the power to produce images that are real enough for our senses to detect–sight, smell, even touch, then it’s not that much further a step to say that the collective human mind might be capable of actually pushing those tulpas into living, independent creatures. After all, much of the metaphysics, philosophy, etc. I’ve read and studied suggests this world we live in has no “real” physical validity anyway (even physics goes down that road), but everything is a construct of sorts, and so Bigfoot or Nessie are just another set of those (I know–you’re linking them in with our past encounters with real counterparts, with the idea that we’re still dragging along those encounters from our collective past). A place where the collective human mind (subconscious most of the time) decides what is viable and what isn’t…and that sometimes these tulpas rear their heads, still a holdover from our collective past.

    On the other hand, even if Bigfoot and Nessie are tulpas or even something else, I still see the worthiness of venturing into the woods and sitting on lake shores hunting for them. From your standpoint, to see if you can actually recreate the circumstances for which they would manifest, and from my standpoint to see if I can catch a glimpse or pic or video or physical evidence. Either way I don’t see that further pursuit is a waste of time. If these things really are tulpas, my guess is that the best way to prove that theory is to keep trying different experiments until you can successfully manifest an encounter or sighting at will. That would go a long way to proving your theory I think…now as to how to do that…my thoughts are reading up on quantum physics, some of the serious new age theories, American Indian belief and lore (for my money American Indians have an edge on things anyway), and then start playing.

    Ultimately, it never hurts to explore new avenues…even ones that most people roll their eyes at. That’s usually how new ideas of thought are introduced…there’s probably a formula out there for new ideas…total rejection and ridicule followed by minimal acceptance followed by…and so on. I for one am always willing to allow for possibility…I surely know I don’t have the market cornered on “how the world works”. Who am I to say with absolute certainty that I’m right and you’re wrong…that kind of thinking leads to the present situation between science and cryptozoology in the first place.

    And even if neither one of us can convince the other of the nature of our favorite cryptids…the ultimate goal of our pursuits are the same–to find out the true nature of Bigfoot and Nessie, whatever it turns out to be.

  17. Nick Redfern responds:

    springheeledjack:

    I pretty much agree: even if we can’t agree on the nature of Bigfoot, we should all be doing (from our own perspectives) whatever we can t solve the mystery. After all, at the end of the day, we all want the Bigfoot mystery resolved. I feel, however, that we should be looking at all angles, not excluding this or that because it may not sit well with belief systems.

    I’m happy to sit down with Loren at a conference and discuss the flesh and blood aspects of Bigfoot, as I am sitting down with someone else who might suggest Bigfoot is an alien (not that I believe that! LOL). Because, at the end of the day – whether people like it or not – Bigfoot is still a mystery, and mysteries – by their nature – provoke theories that can be wildly different (look at Roswell for a classic non-crypto example).

    I seriously doubt there’s much more we can say on these 3 threads that my original article provoked, without going over old ground. But, it’s been an illuminating debate, and I think what it demonstrates more than anything else is that there are people who deeply care about resolving what Bigfoot is – which is the most important thing of all.

    The time to worry is not when one person thinks Bigfoot is an ape, or someone else thinks it’s an ape, and we have an extensive and, at times, heated debate (which is actually a good thing). The time to worry is when no-one cares.

    As long as we search (via field research, or alternative means like mine), we stand a chance of solving it. And that’s the important thing: keep on keeping on.

  18. 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.



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.