Sasquatch Coffee

Editorial: Sierra Kills ~ Folklore, Makelore, Or Fakelore?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 25th, 2012

Editorial: Sierra Kills ~ Folklore, Makelore, Or Fakelore?

Blending the worse parts of fakery and folklore, “fakelore” is an unwelcome friend to cryptozoology and hominology. Presenting itself as imitation folklore, various incidents come along that look like they may be new examples of traditional Sasquatch lore. But are they? Bigfoot fakelore actually turns out to be quicksand, which is attractive but looks too good to be true. And, indeed, most often, it is.

So, editorially, let me propose we pause and ask the question: Is the Sierra Kills melodrama more science or more fakelore?

Take for instance, this alleged piece of physical evidence. It appears trust, true believing, and faith are the main supporting constructs for all of us to think that this “Bigfoot steak” is actually part of a Sasquatch versus something more logical. Some like Jeff Meldrum’s suggestion, that this is coyote fur, or perhaps, from appearance, part of the skin of a grizzly bear (shown).

Or may be it is a piece of bison hide (shown).

Or maybe, my own personal favorite, this “steak” could be nothing more than a dirty piece of the tanned hide of a musk ox, which tend to have well-developed guard fur (hairs) + human skin cells.

Image sources for grizzly; for bison; for musk ox.

One of the enduring components about pursuing land-based cryptids is that physical evidence does exist for those possible new species that appear to have a basis in reality. Regarding Bigfoot/Sasquatch, there is the Patterson-Gimlin footage, which has been analyzed. There are the P-G footprints from the 1967 footage’s trackway that are studied. The combined mixture of elements (in the context of Native traditions and eyewitness accounts) come into play for examination for the Patterson-Gimlin event. Hair samples from other cases and footprints, as well as the unusual items, like the Skookum body cast, allow for a deeper, but physical look, at these cryptids.

Part of the problem of the so-called “Sierra Kills” (see here, here, and here) situation, after all, seems to be in its elusiveness, doesn’t it? The essence of this incident turns out to be nothing more than an elaborate story with a foundation of faith, tales, and less. Promises of forthcoming DNA analyses, presentations of testimonies based on the personalities of one or two individuals, and little else tends to look remarkably like folklore evolving into fakelore, not evidence. The more the “red” editing of the statements occurs, the larger the doubts grow.

Mr. Robert Lindsay, in his blog, has made statements like this one, “This is the first full body drawing ever of a Bigfoot that has been confirmed by DNA evidence.”

Such statements are so full-blown and over-the-top that they appear to be bound to disappoint.

Is this the first full body drawing of a Bigfoot ever – confirmed by DNA evidence? Where is the final proof? Where is the DNA evidence in a journal, shared among scientists, and openly available to researchers?

Commitment to evidence should never rely on blind faith. More disclosure and less promises would be appreciated.

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.


30 Responses to “Editorial: Sierra Kills ~ Folklore, Makelore, Or Fakelore?”

  1. Doug responds:

    Snake oil. Where’s the beef? (or should I say steak).

  2. shownuff responds:

    I do not really care if part of the story of the shooting was fabricated. But that the DNA evidence is real. I thought the story was suspect from the gate. Bobo from ( Not Finding Bigfoot ) was on the Joe Rogan Podcast. Bobo breaks more of the story down and the Lie detecting test and the DNA test. I do not take everything I hear and read for real evidence. Utube the Joe Rogan Podcast with Bobo. He fills in a lot of the blanks of the story. Remember my Cryptomundian Sisters an Brothers. We do not have to believe everything, but do not close the mind to information. Interesting.

  3. DWA responds:

    Hasn’t the history of Cryptomundo already given the answer to this question, hundreds of times over?

    The Peguis, MN sasquatch video from March 2007 is, to me, one of the most compelling single pieces of sasquatch evidence, one of only two or three videos that I have seen that I think could be the real thing.

    And you all are going: hunh?

    Which gives the answer:

    Unless mainstream scientific attention follows: ANYTHING is just another hunk of meat for a few days of essentially meaningless chewing.

    Unless, of course, a couple of people get educated on how to think about evidence, which would be progress, however minuscule.

  4. DWA responds:

    I need to add something else.

    I wish that scientists with a dog in the hunt would stop paying the wrong kind of attention to stuff like this, Dr. Meldrum.

    Why in the world would anyone killing something in CA offer the skin of a grizzly or a musk ox as proof? If the evidence is correct, it would be easier to find a bigfoot there.

    Scientists seem to have this irresistible urge to be “the expert,” even on things outside their expertise. What a skin sample is is a matter of analysis, not random speculation. By saying it is something that it very likely isn’t, one sets oneself up to be successfully ‘contradicted’ by a hoaxer, and why court that?

    All Meldrum has to say is:

    If there is something that can be submitted for scientific analysis, then that should be done.

    And then, so should he.

  5. Fhqwhgads responds:

    Why in the world would anyone…?

    One of the hardest things to accept is that this kind of question is ultimately meaningless. In a country of 300,000,000, there is nothing so pointless, so illogical, or so downright crazy that *somebody* won’t do it.

  6. shmargin responds:

    Unless there’s real evidence, then you have nothing. This story has a hairy piece of skin, but is it confirmed to be from an unknown species? Theres some drawings a guy did…Forgot the digital camera or cell phone, but remembered enough to make a sketch that they are sure is exactly how they look…?

    Any story, no matter how great it is written, and how many details the person provides about it, its still just a story. I could write a great story about my times living with bigfoots in the deserts of New Mexico where they like to spend some of their off time relaxing in the sun when the dreary weather of the pacific northwest starts getting them down…Oh I don’t have any proof of any of that, but I could write about it and forward it to enough news sites, and apparently that is all it takes to make at least some people believe it.

  7. DWA responds:

    “Why in the world would anyone…?

    One of the hardest things to accept that this kind of question is ultimately meaningless. In a country of 300,000,000, there is nothing so pointless, so illogical, or so downright crazy that *somebody* won’t do it.”

    So we should presume that that is what happened?

    No.

    The way to bet is the way to bet.

    That’s not the way to bet.

    You don’t scattergun toss off presumptions like that if you are a scientist. OK, you shouldn’t; that too many do doesn’t make it right.

    You say what your expertise allows, and then back to work.

    In this case that is:

    Somebody needs to determine what that is.

  8. William responds:

    While I do not believe this particular tale or yarn just today, I came across something very interesting. Edgar Cayce the famous psychic who died I believe in 1945 had the following to say about the existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch:

    The following is a transcript of an Akashic record consultation conducted by Douglas Cottrell. It is posted with permission; reproduction is permitted as long as it remains unadulterated and this notice is included. This information was obtained through deep trance meditation and should be used in a reasonable and practical manner.
    ———————————————————————————–
    Q: There are legends concerning a creature known as “Sasquatch” or “Bigfoot”. Over the years attempts have been made to document its existence in North America. Does such a creature exist and if so, what is it?
    A: We would find this as a remnant of those ancient times in which there was a combination of humanoid and animalistic, brute strength beings combined. This particular hairy being, man-like, exists and roams the planet, with a high degree of intelligence. It is not a caveman reincarnated, but is an animal in a sense that gorillas and larger, similar species would possess. However, this one is more like Man because of its genetic bearing. Does live in small groups and lives in different parts of the world. It is a remnant of those ancient times of the Atlantean, who possessed such beasts of burden. We would find that much evidence has been gained from the same. The bodies upon death are dismembered and disposed of in such a way that there is no trace, because it was the original process of disposing of all dead things. Now in that of the environment in which they exist, it is hostile and they are part of the food chain; however to the question, it appears that they are in various aspects of the world, closely aligned species, able to travel great distances because of their large size. They do not stay in a designated area, but tend to roam large distances, usually as a nocturnal being itself. They originated as a part of “The Things” that were to be utilized to carry out chores. They would emanate from that part of the world that would be known as Atlantis when the continent broke into the 5 islands; they seem to have dispersed to the four corners of the world themselves as they were taken northeast to Europe, east and southeast to what would be India, the Pyrenees and Africa, into Egypt you see. And also that that would be to South America, that of Chile, and we would find also here to the Americas which there would be the regions of Georgia, and North Carolina, and they migrated inwardly. As there was the fluctuation further of the world, then they would have moved further North, in Europe to the mountain ranges themselves. They live somewhat in environments that would suit bears- wooded marshy areas… but go to the high ground in cold weather.

    Q: What is the life span of these creatures?
    A: It would appear to be somewhere between 125 and 140 years, about 10 times the age at which they enter reproductive capability.

    The fact he stated all of this years before the PG film ever arose is extremely interesting. It seems to be spot on!

  9. DWA responds:

    But hold it, Fhqwhgads . You just made a major, major, major point.

    Why hasn’t anyone hit one with a car?

    Why hasn’t anyone shot one?

    Why hasn’t anyone found bones or a body?

    Never mind that people say they have, and that there is no more reason, on reading them, to not believe their stories than to believe them.

    One of the hardest things to accept is that this kind of question is ultimately meaningless.

    It does nothing to explain the mountain of evidence.

    You can’t ask questions. You have to come up with answers for that evidence.

    If all the assertions implied in those questions are true…it doesn’t matter, not one whit. You still have to explain the evidence.

  10. Fhqwhgads responds:

    Calm down, DWA. I was just making a general statement about people, not really about this Sierra Kills nonsense. For example, there was a story in the news a few days ago about some guy who somehow swallowed a fork and then somehow managed to forget about it for around a decade. Not only do I think that neither of us will understand WHY he forgot about it, I don’t think we will ever understand HOW he could have.

    However, such people must be rare. Legitimate encounters of Bigfoot may safely be said to be very rare. Unless odd people somehow are more likely to have a genuine encounter with Bigfoot, your argument did have weight.

    In general, there is a difference between the questions, “Why would anyone …?” and “Why hasn’t anyone …?” The answer to the second question is often, “Because they can’t.” “Why would anyone long jump across the Grand Canyon?” I think lots of people would be willing to do it if they thought they had a snowball’s chance. “Why hasn’t anyone long jumped across the Grand Canyon?” Because the world record long jump is under 30 feet, and the Grand Canyon is significantly wider than 30 feet.

  11. DWA responds:

    Fhqwhgads:

    “Legitimate encounters of Bigfoot may safely be said to be very rare.”

    I don’t actually think that’s safe to say at all.

    The reactions that people get from reporting encounters to those that they know – reactions of which most of the public CAN safely be said to be very much aware, based on the way most sighters react to the sighting themselves – say this: if you say you saw one, people will think you’re crazy.

    When a person having an encounter knows that that’s in play, it’s a reasonably safe bet, for each one, that few that person knows, if any, will ever find out about it. Betting that way would be one of the more reliable ways to get rich, were there any money in it.

    (And what is this skeptic thing about “the guy who finds this animal will be richrichrich?” Were that actually true and not demonstrably an extremely sketchy proposition at best, the sasquatch would be confirmed. Or there would be so many looking that no proof by now might even convince the proponents. Just had to toss that in.)

    Bill Dranginis’s VA database reports a crossing of Interstate 64, in broad daylight The reporting motorist makes it clear that, as one would expect, the road was very busy. Numerous drivers reacted. But only one reported it.

    (In similar cases, two or three motorists actually have independently reported what seemed to be the same incident.)

    When the basic premise is that reporting this to those you know is risk of livelihood, risk of friendship, risk of reputation, nothing is safe to say about it.

    The volume of reports coming in to BFRO is, I wager, greater than actual sightings of wolverines during similar periods, were we able to track those somehow. Probably more than wolves or cougars, as well. And this is just the ones being reported. So many people wait years, and even decades, to file reports that there’s nothing safe to say about it. John Green – with a lot more experience with reports than me – doesn’t think these animals are rare or endangered at all. Which I would have to think means he thinks they’re being sighted much more frequently than reports would indicate.

    For phenomena like this, that is certainly the way to bet.

  12. Goodfoot responds:

    Fhqwhgads:

    “Legitimate encounters of Bigfoot may safely be said to be very rare.”

    WHO SAYS? Oh yeah… it was you again. Actually, it seems that such encounters must be, if not truly common, ongoing and copious in number!

  13. Fhqwhgads responds:

    I’ll concede that “very rare” is vague. In fact, I have frequently complained about the vagueness of that exact word on more than one occasion. Does it mean rare, like Down Syndrome? Rare, like winning the lottery? Rare, like a presidential assassination? How rare is rare enough?

    What I meant is that it is noticeably less frequent than sightings of well-accepted animals, like bears. I would tend to think cougars and wolverines are also sighted more frequently, at least in their native habitats. If they aren’t rare, the fact that there is so much less footage of them than of cougars and wolverines becomes all the more striking.

    Of course, I don’t expect much to be left of the wolverines after Saturday.

  14. DWA responds:

    Erratum:

    I say “When the basic premise is that reporting this to those you know is risk of livelihood, risk of friendship, risk of reputation, nothing is safe to say about it.”

    Not entirely true, as I note when I say “…[Green] thinks they’re being sighted much more frequently than reports would indicate.

    For phenomena like this, that is certainly the way to bet.”

    It is, in fact, a pretty safe bet.

  15. barncat responds:

    William: That transcript is not from Edger Cayce, it’s from Douglas Cottrell, a more recent practitioner of “deep trance meditation” and is only a few years old. A recording of it can be found on youtube. The term “bigfoot” was only coined in the late 1950s as far as I know, so Edger Cayce likely never heard that word.

  16. alan borky responds:

    DWA: “Why hasn’t anyone hit one with a car…Why hasn’t anyone shot one?”

    There may be plenty who’ve done exactly those things over the decades but they didn’t report it for the same reason most people don’t report hit and runs or accidental shootings in woods because they don’t want the consequences if what they hit was someone in a fur coat or a ghillie suit.

    Add to which if they don’t check it’s easier to convince themselves they didn’t hit or shoot anyone or anything at all when nothing appears in the media about it.

    Loren apart from the grey flesh I actually have a particularly hairy Greek uncle and a number of Greek friends who could pass for this Robert Lindsay drawing or as relatives of it.

    And if they’ve been particularly overdoing the ouzo and the Turkish cigarettes the previous night their pallors can even pass for a pretty fair impression of that greyness.

  17. Goodfoot responds:

    Fhqwhgads responds: August 27th, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    I’ll concede that “very rare” is vague. In fact, I have frequently complained about the vagueness of that exact word on more than one occasion. Does it mean rare, like Down Syndrome? Rare, like winning the lottery? Rare, like a presidential assassination? How rare is rare enough?

    What I meant is that it is noticeably less frequent than sightings of well-accepted animals, like bears.

    See… if you were actually looking into the matter, you’d know that Bigfoots are being seen on a daily basis, in all probability. It’s the REPORTS of sightings that are relatively rare!

  18. DWA responds:

    Fhqwhgads:

    “What I meant is that it is noticeably less frequent than sightings of well-accepted animals, like bears. I would tend to think cougars and wolverines are also sighted more frequently, at least in their native habitats.”

    But again, the “noticeably less frequent” applies only to reported sightings (all we can, really, chalk up for anything), and in their native habitats, there is no significant incentive for mountain lion and wolverine sighters not to report what they see. Even in places they haven’t occupied recently, reports are going up. The animals are known to exist, after all, and the idea that they are spreading back into formerly occupied habitat has gotten wide play (as has the idea that, well, sightings are notable and should be reported), such that even land managers are starting to listen up. Sightings are immediately picked up by national news media, and presumed authentic. For these animals, reported sightings are, I bet, closer to actual encounters than they are for sasquatch.

    “If they aren’t rare, the fact that there is so much less footage of them than of cougars and wolverines becomes all the more striking.”

    Actually, footage of wild wolverines and cougars is, basically, hen’s teeth. Good photos of truly wild individuals are virtually nonexistent; almost all that exist are of captive animals on private reserves maintained for the purpose. All the footage that exists is the result of long-term, daily effort, for months and years, by experts good with a camera, devoted pretty much to that purpose. Meldrum once asked a wolverine expert how he’d gotten all those great photos. Every one was from a game farm, but one. That shot of a distant whatzit? dot on the snow was all this full-time dedicated expert had ever gotten of a wild wolverine.

    (No. They are NOT fast runners.)

    There is no human activity the difficulty of which is more consistently underrated than filming elusive animals. Anyone who watched “Planet Earth” knows that wild crazy fulltime dedication went into getting shots of camels (half-ton animals that roam in herds, living most of their lives out of sight of cover) and snow leopards (weeks of camping out in a very frequented area). For a pro to get sasquatch footage will be at least that tough, if not tougher. Patterson-Gimlin was shot at the end of a three-and-a-half week daily dawn-dusk search, in an area with metric tons of sasquatch sign, on horseback. And it’s less than a minute of jumpy film. And it was the only chance they got.

    Basically: no amateur will get a shot of a sasquatch. OK, they have.

    Daylight encounter with two hunters south of Union (w/ cellphone photos)

    There. That’s what they will get.

  19. DWA responds:

    alanborky:

    “DWA: “Why hasn’t anyone hit one with a car…Why hasn’t anyone shot one?”

    There may be plenty who’ve done exactly those things over the decades but they didn’t report it for the same reason most people don’t report and runs or accidental shootings in woods because they don’t want the consequences if what they hit was someone in a fur coat or a ghillie suit.”

    Well, right. The scenarios are virtually without number: I don’t want the publicity; I don’t want the Feds yanking my mine/timber claim; I’m scared and need to get out of here (read at least one); I’m sick to my stomach at what I didn’t know would feel like murder; I thought it was a moose, then didn’t know what the hell it was except that I’d be asking for trouble to report it (read one); I shot in self-defense and didn’t stick around (read two; the shooter knows he hit the animal in each case and in one knocked it down); that kill looked unusual but (I was afraid there would be) a bear on it; it was disgusting! I couldn’t get close enough (or my GF told me GET IT OUT OF THE CAR! um, read one)…etc.

  20. DWA responds:

    Erratum:

    “(or my GF told me GET IT OUT OF THE CAR! um, read one)”

    actually, read TWO of those, close enough to each other in time and space that it’s speculated both found the exact same item (a decomposing foot).

  21. Fhqwhgads responds:

    @DWA

    Sightings of bears, for example, are also under-reported. My dad has seen bears along the highway or in his back yard several times, but he doesn’t bother phoning them in to the Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Why would he? The bears weren’t causing a problem, and everyone knows there are a few bears in those woods. It is not really possible to know which sightings are more under-reported.

    Regardless, if it is hard to evaluate the quality of sightings that ARE reported, it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate the quality of those that ARE NOT reported. For the purpose of determining whether Bigfoot even exists as a real animal, unreported sightings are simply not data at all.

  22. DWA responds:

    “For the purpose of determining whether Bigfoot even exists as a real animal, unreported sightings are simply not data at all.”

    As I said, reported sightings are all we can chalk up for anything.

    It’s just logical to propose, if the overall context indicates that sasquatch sightings might be something worth taking seriously (which it clearly does), that there is significant incentive for many to go unreported. Which is implied by the reactions that sighters report when they try to tell what they saw.

    Whether this is actually true or not, who knows? But one isn’t on sound logical ground presuming that sightings equal or are less than reports, any more than one would be for bears.

  23. Fhqwhgads responds:

    Well, if so, all the better: If there are Bigfoot all over the place, it’s all the more inevitable that solid physical proof will be produced. After all, it’s the solid proof that makes us accept the wolverine, which you claim may be encountered less frequently than Bigfoot.

    However, this “Sierra kills” story has too many problems for anyone to expect that the solid physical proof will come from it.

  24. Goodfoot responds:

    “PROBLEMS”??? It’s PURE FANTASY – the product of a FEVERISH MIND.

  25. DWA responds:

    Well, “inevitable” and “in my lifetime” are two completely different things.

    After all it was “inevitable” that geometrical spectra would be nailed down as a neurological condition. It wasn’t so “inevitable” that after first being clearly reported and diagnosed, it would vanish, utterly, from the medical literature for about a century before Oliver Sacks “discovered” it again.

    (Bindernagel uses that and similar examples to significant effect in his “The Discovery of the Sasquatch.” In fact, he thinks that something fairly similar actually did happen with the sasquatch. Worth a read.)

    But this Sierra Kills story has smelled like a dumpster full of last week’s tuna catch from the very beginning. And history tells us what pretty much inevitably happens there.

  26. Fhqwhgads responds:

    I don’t know why you should be so pessimistic. A Bigfoot is not a subtle thing, so if a type specimen, alive or dead, is made available for study, it will be obvious. This is very different from many other questions, such as whether or not early modern humans mated with Neanderthals, which may never be definitively known. And if they have a stable breeding population, there must be thousands of them, which is consistent with the number of reported sightings. They would also be intelligent, which would go a long ways towards protecting them from human intrusion, habitat loss, and climate change — so that they would not wink out of existence just before being described by science.

  27. William responds:

    @barncat “William: That transcript is not from Edger Cayce, it’s from Douglas Cottrell, a more recent practitioner of “deep trance meditation” and is only a few years old. A recording of it can be found on youtube. The term “bigfoot” was only coined in the late 1950s as far as I know, so Edger Cayce likely never heard that word.”

    Thanks. That makes more sense as I was wondering how Cayce would have even known what those terms meant. I never knew about this modern version of Cayce until now.

  28. Goodfoot responds:

    You got it! If they’ve been around hereabouts for 10,000 years or more, wouldn’t it stand to reason they have a stable breeding population? Which, chicken/egg/chicken, etc., implies sizable numbers, and, I think, the aforementioned intelligence to stay out of man’s way as much as possible… I’ve played with figures for years, and I keep coming back regularly to a North American population range of 60,000-600,000. That top figure may sound shocking, and it very well may be wrong. But does anyone believe half a million plus intelligent hominids would have trouble hiding out in the forests, swamps and, just maybe, deserts of North America?

    The late Ivan Sanderson liked to point out that much of North America is far less known now than it was 150 years ago, during the age of exploration. Now we have places that don’t see human beings for very long periods of time. Some places probably hardly ever see one.

  29. Fhqwhgads responds:

    See… if you were actually looking into the matter, you’d know that Bigfoots are being seen on a daily basis, in all probability.

    First of all, I’ll let you take up with Loren the correct plural of “Bigfoot”. So much for “looking into the matter”.

    More importantly, “in all probability” = “in my imagination”. That is ALL it means.

    Besides, this hurts your case. If Bigfoot are rare, the lack of compelling evidence is easier to accept. One of several valid reasons people have mentioned for doubting the extraordinary claims of the Carter farm is the fact that no photos were taken, nor was any physical evidence collected. If Bigfoot are being seen “on a daily basis”, why are we stuck looking at Youtube videos of pranksters in gorilla suits, or regular human beings walking too far away to be clearly identified, or thick knots of underbrush that are, in all likelihood, thick knots of underbrush? The claim becomes as doubtful as the Carter farm.

  30. DWA responds:

    Fhqwhgads:

    Well, history gives me considerable grounds for pessimism.

    To get this far with the collective mind of mainstream science pretty closed on this matter isn’t too encouraging.

    C’mon, TBRC, is all I can say.

    Well, not all. Even “Finding Bigfoot” seems to be spurring reports that appear as genuine as anything else I’ve read. I’m only guessing from the substantial spike in current-year encounters on the BFRO database. Although “FB” is regrettable, BFRO’s hearts and, generally, minds seem in the right place. One doesn’t have to be a crack scientist – as “FB” shows they aren’t – to maintain a database. That’s not Bobo talking, that’s North America – the entire spectrum of race sex class literacy and socioeconomic condition. That’s virtually impossible to fake; but if it is somehow all false positives it’s the Great American Novel and should get a Nobel.

    Without mainstream attention it stays the way it is, unless we get stupid lucky. But public opinion might actually get involved in this before long. Thanks to (aaaaaargh!) television.

    Until then…c’mon TBRC.

    So. Less pessimistic than maybe history warrants. (And we don’t seem to have a tendency to find anything just AFTER it went extinct, although there’s a sea mink tapping me on the shoulder at the moment.)

    And it’s been fun. So can’t fault that neither.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



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.