Bigfoot and High Strangeness

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on February 21st, 2007

Cryptomundo reader r.lee has given me permission to repost this article concerning the Bigfoot/UFO enigma. This topic spawned quite the discussion here on Cryptomundo:

Of course, there are those who say Bigfoot is high strangeness, all on its own, that to say “Bigfoot and High Strangeness” is redundant.

When it comes to encounters of Bigfoot and UFOs, or telepathic communications with Bigfoot, or stories of Bigfoot appearing and disappearing — and bi-locating, even — the majority of UFO and Bigfoot researchers don’t want anything to do with it.

The combination causes great gnashing of teeth, at the very least. Serious, flesh and blood Bigfoot researchers don’t have any patience with the subject. Many a Bigfoot on-line forum has kicked off members who even bring up the topic.

When I first came upon these tales, of Bigfoot having some connection with UFOs, and more, I thought it was a joke. Literally. The first thing I came across was an article in, I think, UFO Magazine many many years ago. I have it somewhere in my files but no idea where. But I kept coming across these stories, and as wild, weird, and bizarre as they seemed, there was a consistency, and there were enough of them, by enough people, to support a pattern.

There are two stories of this type right here in my state of Oregon. (Shameless plug, my book on this topic will be out in e-book form very soon.)

This is a fascinating topic, and there are standard legends that have been written about by researchers. One theory is that these ‘Bigfoot’ are not the flesh and blood Bigfoot, but OOP (out of place) creatures; Hairy Bipeds, phantom creatures, not to be confused with “real” Bigfoot. Others say they’re one and the same.

And while there are individuals who write about their personal experiences with these creatures, there still isn’t much research going on regarding this phenomena. On the one hand, it seems too tired, too old. Tales of weird, high strangeness Hairy Biped encounters, like the Lake Worth Monster, MoMo, and others are decades old. They’ve become a part of the paranormal/anomalous lore, but they also seem quaint to some, and no longer a viable subject. (Indeed, my own book focuses on two events going back over 40 years.)

UFO researchers have enough on their hands. In many ways UFOlogy is decompartmentalized. It has to be; there is so much out there, so many aspects to the phenomena, that to do good research each individual usually has to choose a few areas (if that many) to focus on. Bigfoot researchers already have points against them before they’ve even started out; after all, they’re after Bigfoot. Maintaining credibility is tough enough. Why strain the acceptance factor by seriously considering UFOs, telepathy and other weirdness? And look at the recent news concerning Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University. His own academic and scientific community wants him ousted (nice work there Big Science Guys.) Can you imagine what things would be like if Meldrum started in about UFOs, esp, and materializing Bigfoot?

And then too, not all Bigfoot researchers believe in any of the other stuff anyway.

But there is evidence to suggest that there is something else occurring in many Bigfoot cases. It has been for a long time, and continues.

There are many accounts of Bigfoot (and similar creatures in other countries, such as the Yowie in Australia, etc.) with red glowing eyes, white haired (or furred) Bigfoot, apparitional Bigfoot, UFOs and Bigfoot, etc. in Janet and Colin Bord’s Bigfoot Casebook.

Mary Green, Jack Lapseritis, Lisa Shiel to name just a few have written about their experiences with this “high strangeness” type of Bigfoot that go beyond merely a flesh and blood “animal.” Researcher Joe Fex has done a lot of work in this subject, an area where “mainstream cryptozoology” won’t go. That includes many “mainstream” cryptid-ologists. (sorry for the clumsy word coining.) Fex’s accounts are definitely on the bizarre side, and yet…that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. And Kelli, from the White Wolf website, has told me she and her husband frequently see Sasquatch in relation to UFOs and many other odd things and entities on their remote Eastern Washington property.

One theory that explains these strange Bigfoot-UFO-High Strangeness events is the idea of vortexes. Many remote (and some not so remote) areas are full of events like this; some without Bigfoot but leaning more to UFO and other weird activity, others with less UFO but more Bigfoot and OOP creatures, some with both. In any case, it’s clear that some sort of opening, some sort of portal, vortex, some way exists that either causes these beings and objects to move from one place to another, or possibility, creates these things. I’m not sure what I think of this yet myself, but it’s a start.

Whatever these weird things are; phantoms, faeries, inter-dimensional beings, aliens, Ultra terrestrials, human shape shifters, or even ‘flesh and blood” Bigfoot, these events occur, as a rich body of lore tells us.

Clearly there is a rich and wonderfully weird area here to be researched, and discussed openly. But like the topic of “alien” abductions in its early days, it’s a cause of embarrassment for many within the field, let alone outside it.

It’s too bad, because a lot can be learned from these events. I understand the difficulty in accepting these encounters as literally occurring, but occur they do.— r.lee

Lake Worth Monster image used with the permission of Sallie Ann Clarke.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

49 Responses to “Bigfoot and High Strangeness”

  1. kittenz responds:

    So maybe Chewbacca wasn’t a guy in a suit after all :).

  2. DWA responds:

    Well, clock me in as a guy who has no patience for this crap.

    People keep saying this happens. Why have I never read a sighting report yet on a sas website that describes such an occurrence?

    Look, OK, fine, let’s say some folks are seeing stuff like this. Folks see ghosts too. Let them. As far as I’m concerned, if science can’t confirm it, though, leave people to their visions, and leave the data out of the database.

    At least if you want science to ever take you seriously.

    Now if you don’t care, that’s an entirely different story. But please don’t run around insisting on being believed. Science is the coin of the realm in cryptozoology, like it or not. The rest is just folks having fun.

  3. MBFH responds:

    DWA – patience you must have, yes.

    “…if science can’t confirm it,…, leave people to their visions…” – isn’t there also a role for science to play in finding out what causes people to have these visions? Different subject to CZ I know, but if it can be understood then surely it’s valuable in determining if Bigfoot exists. If you don’t, how can you be sure you’ve got all the bad data out?

    In his book Earth Lights, Paul Devereaux gives an account of some young boys who were chased by a floating light and at least one of them saw part of a large hairy biped nearby at the same time. This happened in the UK. So, obviously some sightings are visions, hallucinations and the like but how do know which ones? Like in a the previous post about the footprints – is it all bad data? Is everyone who claims to see these creatures having a vision?

    I don’t have the answers but I’m with you on one thing, science is the key. It’s got to be applied to everything though before anything can be discounted.

  4. Morgoth responds:

    The problem with this line of inquiry is that it is a much, much bigger story than an unknown species of ape, or even relic hominid. This is big news for physics, religion, and reality itself. Occam’s razor is going to prevent much traction here…

  5. DWA responds:


    OK, here’s my problem, Yoda. 😀

    The paranormal stuff and the mixture with UFOs are static, non–relevant noise on the basic question of the animial’s existence, that tends to keep science away from the sasquatch. As I hinted, if not outright said, I’ve read a lot of sighting reports, and none of them mention any paranormal phenomena. That’s sufficient evidence for me to push the paranormal aside as not essential to dealing with the animal’s possibile existence. UFOs exist. I mean that’s what they are, things that exist, that fly, but are UNidentified. If anyone knows a way to apply science to that, much less attaching it to the sas then dealing with THAT mess, (a) it ain’t me and (b) you gotta find a scientist who will touch the topic.

    Good luck.

    Mind you, I’m not sure that many of the “flesh and blood” sas sightings aren’t hallucinations or lies or pranks. And mind you, I’m not even totally sure that science going after the sas is a good thing. I hold out hope, yes I know that’s irrational, that scientific confirmation will be more of a plus than a minus. (And for selfish reasons. I’m pretty sure I’ll never see a sas, so I’d like to see some good footage. There, I came clean.)

    But I think I can say, with confidence, that connecting Bigfoot to paranormal phenomena is a really good science deterrent. It sure seems to have worked so far.

  6. chrisandclauida2 responds:

    what is the most probable or possible for all things bigfoot.

    maybe it is just the ghost of bigfoot or a residual haunting of a certain area. hell even that is more probable than some of the other scif hokey voodoo bigfoot drives a ufo and goes thru the inter dimensional doorways crap i hear.

    flesh and blood people flesh and blood.

    I’m open minded but what you tell me has to sound plausible and in line with all the other evidence.

    is this site about cryptid animals or paranormal animals. i understand that to investigate these animals we have to be open minded and not make assumptions but there is no evidence for the proponents claims of a non flesh and blood animal.

    the basis of this crap is people trying to explain crappy photos or poor shots etc. which is the more likely and explainable idea.
    Beckjord saying the picture is blurry so bigfoot must be in the process of shape shifting.

    besides i havent heard any sound recordings hearing bigfoots say “transdimensional powers activate..shape of a tree…. form of snow”.

    the more plausible explanation is crappy camera or one that isnt set properly taking a picture of a creature too far away to be clearly defined from its background.

    just as we have to prove why certain things are bigfoot related we have to prove why this alternate theory is bigfoot and not that these things are flesh and blood.

    like the little old lady who says wheres the beef i say wheres the evidence. irrefutable facts that go together to form an explanation. show me the proof.

  7. raisinsofwrath responds:

    This kind of overlaps into areas such as Skinwalker Ranch.

    We can’t just dismiss something because it is over our personal belief line. If BF was an interdimensional being or a UFO occupant it would certainly explain allot.

    There’s always a good view from atop the fence.

  8. MBFH responds:

    Ah, I see your point more clearly now DWA. Divide and conquer? I’m all for that, as long as someone remembers to look for the links afterwards. Joined up thinking rather than a bunker mentality is what I was getting at.

    There are scientists looking at unidentified aerial phenomenon by the way – mainly in Norway. Strange naturally occuring lights over fjords. They just don;t know what they are or how they occur. Wonder if the Almasty get into Scandanavia…?

    Just kidding.

  9. kittenz responds:

    “May the force be with us.”

    – oh wait, that was another thread :).

  10. mystery_man responds:

    I personally do not think that unexplained phenomena are out of the realm of scientific explanation at all. A lot of phenomena are merely lacking the kind of dedicated research needed or the kinds of equipment that would help get to the bottom of what is going on. DWA said that if science can’t confirm it, then it is something to be ignored, but I disagree. I say that there is the very real possibility that science just hasn’t confirmed it YET. We can not really expect that all of the wonders of the world have been confirmed or explained by science already. How can we not investigate potential new finds like this based on them not having been confirmed yet? There are more than a few things throughout the history of man that have been considered fantastic and downright magical, but are mundane, commonplace knowledge today. I feel there is every possibility that at some point, we may have the technical knowhow and insight in order to explain how, say, ESP works. Maybe there will one day be a sound, scientific explanation for how these vortexes that Loren mentioned work, or even how ghosts and whatnot are formed. I also think that some phenomena will open the way to explaining more about how our Earth works. For example, perhaps these ghosts lights that people see are indicative of some other unknown atmospheric or geological scientific process. I just think we should be careful not to dismiss the possibility that these things are all potentially quantifiable conditions of the natural world. I am trained in zoology and biology and get scoffed at a lot for saying stuff like this, but people were also once scoffed at for thinking the world was round. The fact that these things are ridiculed only make them farther away from ever being understood. Let me make it clear that I do not necessarily believe in all of these things, merely that science throughout the ages has uncovered amazing things and there is a possibility these “paranormal phenomena” will have light shed on them someday. As a scientist, i feel that it would be irresponsible to scoff them all away merely because they are not understood yet. I feel that something is only a “phenomena” until it is understood. The ability and equipment needed to research and get to the bottom of the mysteries of the world are not even close to being tapped out, so maybe some of these “paranormal phenomena” will end up being pretty normal someday.

    As for Bigfoot, I tend to approach this particular topic as I would do any other animal. To me it is a biological entity that simply has not been classified yet and that is my take on it. The fact that a lot of wierd stuff attributed to them is very intriguing, though.

  11. richard_from_idaho responds:

    Darned interesting, no matter your perspective.

  12. DWA responds:

    MBFH: Yeah, close to it.

    I want scientists to verify the big guy exists first. If one of them sees a UFO pick his boy off the meadow while he’s shooting the video, he’s free to deal with that at that time. 😀

    I DON’T think it’s going to make anyone happy for sas and UFO researchers to toss brickbats. I understand that many if not most of the latter would like to keep Bigfoot and Elvis off their turf for the moment as well.

  13. DWA responds:

    raisinsofwrath: As I hope my posts point out, this isn’t about personal belief lines. It’s about getting scientists interested in pursuing what’s up.

  14. silvereagle responds:

    Humans have a limited ability to remember history that has not been written down for public perusal. Many of today’s researchers, were at best still in diapers, when it was common knowledge about the bigfoot’s strangeness. So to a large existent, history has been forgotten. The scientific studies have in fact been done, but kept under wraps by the departments of our government that paid for them. Other dimensions are a fact of modern science. In reading accepted scientific books on higher dimensions, they typically avoid using any names like bigfoot, leprechauns, etc. Instead, I have seen them bring to light, man’s steadfast denial of the possibility that living beings inhabit higher dimensions. Yet the evidence is readily available in virtually any forest, for discovery by the common man. The evidence is primarily audio evidence, that is verified by 3rd generation night vision as not being visible. Yet fewer than 1% of bigfoot researchers have adequate equipment to verify higher dimensions, and even fewer still, can put 2 and 2 together in that regard. So today’s modern bigfoot researcher, is typically under equipped, under educated, uninformed and psychologically unable to open his or her mind sufficiently to make any significant headway in resurrecting historical facts. Because the science has already been done.

  15. raisinsofwrath responds:


    I understand what your goal is. The fact of the matter is that few scientists are as open minded as they should or claim to be.

  16. MBFH responds:

    mystery_man: my point exactly, just more eloquently put. There are masses of anomalies out there, many recorded in mainstream scientific literature (see William Corliss’ work for examples). A lot of these things, Bigfoot included, are ignored I think, because they don’t fit into the conventional way of thinking. They upset the cosy, safe perception people have of the world: everything is understood and can be explained, and if it can’t we’ll ignore it until it goes away. This isn’t how science makes discoveries.

  17. windigo responds:

    First, greetings to all. Second, I was compelled to state that, while many are quick to judge, everyone should consider the fact that no Sasquatch has ever positively been identified as having been captured or killed. This, despite the fact that they probably number in the thousands across America. Think about it. All the expeditions have failed to bring one back and no hunter has been able to fell one, nor automobile able to fully impact one. What would the odds of that be after all these years? Myself, after several years of researching this elusive creature I still am unsure of it’s true nature, but I am starting to believe that there is more to them then meets the eye. I have heard all the arguments telling me different, but they are starting to make less and less sense.

  18. Rillo777 responds:

    Hopefully UFO’s aren’t dumping their unwanted pets on planet earth! 🙂
    Seriously though, this thinking can get right back to the spiritual vs non-spiritual and we don’t want that. Say, for example BF is a non-physical creature or even drummed up by our sub-conscious, a sort of Jungarian archtype projection that appears to be a living, breathing creature. How then could we possibly study It? By what laws does it operate? Might we even learn to control it and for what purpose. Mostly, we must throw science out the window as we are now dealing with forces that can’t be measured or, presumably, reliably observed. If it is spiritual shall we get a crucifix and stake and hunt it down ala Van Helsing?
    I’ve pondered this somewhat myself and I believe, despite the occasional UFO connection, that we are dealing with flesh and blood creatures. The spoor samples, footprints, photos and other physical evidence that exist seem to confirm this. If something ethereal out there is playing games with us on top of that then that is best left for another site other than Cryptomundo.

  19. MattBille responds:

    I don’t rule out the possibility of psychic or spiritual phenomena, but it simply has nothing to do with cryptozoology, a branch of the hard sciences. Cryptozoology meets the definition of a hard science, in that it deals with falsifiable hypotheses. Parapsychology is another discipline entirely.

  20. silvereagle responds:

    Interdimensional: The ability to move from one obvious dimension, to another apparently different dimension or subdimension.

    Research does not stop once one concludes that Bigfoot is both interdimensional and spiritual, who are capable of taking on not only 3 dimensional forms in ours and other dimensions, but also forms similar to what the human spirit takes upon death. Different audio characteristics are associated with each subdimension that they are capable of visiting. We can hear them and thus study them to come up with theories, even though we cannot see them. Some spirit forms can also be observed under infrared lights with 3rd generation night vision. Typical patterns of behavior can then be noted in all forms and phases, as well as can then be used to predict behavior for new as yet to occur scenarios. This aids in picking optimum locations to “call” them in for instance, with internet downloadable bigfoot screams. Although scientifically unexplainable to a large extent, the existence of this behavior is certainly not the end of scientific observation, nor a point at which one “gives up”. To the contrary, once a researcher understands these forms and phases, the Bigfoot gains both trust and respect for him and will often approach within 10 feet, so that new studies can be undertaken. In addition, advance problem solving becomes possible with law enforcement agencies for instance, where temporarily difficult issues arise from interaction between Bigfoot and man. Finally, once a researcher finds this understanding, he can then provide improved theories as to why we fail at everything that we attempt, in order to prove the existence of thousands if not millions of Bigfoot in this world. In my opinion, we fail not because we don’t spend enough time in the field, but rather, because we incorrectly concentrate on gathering visual evidence instead of on audio evidence.

    So paranormal, does not mean “it’s game over man” by any means. It means, THE GAME IS JUST BEGINNING!

  21. ladd responds:

    I know we’ve had this discussion before on whether or not there is a connection between Bigfoot and UFOs. There are those who feel there is a correlation. That’s fine and I understand and appreciate their perspective. As for myself I feel there is no association between the two. They are two separate entities both being enigmatic and elusive as ever. Bigfoot and it’s ilk should always remain a cryptozoological study and out of the realms of the paranormal and ufological. However I do make an effort to keep an open mind.

    “If you cannot dream of the possibility you won’t look for the clues.”- Albert Einstein

  22. MBFH responds:

    Silvereagle, can you please tell us where your information comes from? I’ve not read anywhere as near as extensively on CZ and the paranormal as I’d like but I’ve never heard anything like what you mention being successful, although investigations have used the equipment you mention.

    Some more information would be much appreciated. I open to the idea of other dimensions, quantum physics is only just exploring this area as far as I’m aware.

  23. silvereagle responds:

    MBFH, The thoughts for field study observations, comes from my own personal observations and experiences. I have assisted and demonstrated for law enforcement agencies. A good accepted book on dimensions is “Warped Passages, Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universes Hidden Dimensions”, by Lisa Randall Phd. Historical facts comes for dozens of individuals and World renown professors at UC Berkeley, at locations in Oregon and California during the 60’s and 70’s. Bigfoot studies occurred at Lawrence Livermore National Labs in the 60’s, and paid for by the DoD. The conclusion of that study was that “Bigfoot cannot be contained, controlled, or communicated with and are thought to be alien in origination”. Today, well over a hundred people apparently do in fact communicate with them because many Bigfoot understand English, and easily become friendly. Bigfoot has also apparently been on earth for 180 million years or so, which is a tad longer than modern man at 180,000 years tops.

  24. mystery_man responds:

    Well, I think that although I have my opinions on other strange phenomena(read my post above), Matt Bille is right that they don’t really have anything to do with cryptozoology. I think most of us here are approaching this from a zoological perspective and in that sense we should be using these methods and this mindset to approach the subject. If people want to delve into what makes other phenomena tick, then I say good luck and I fully believe there is a chance they will gain new information on how the world works. Those things may be explained in time, but they are another type of research entirely. As for cryptozoologists, we are in the field of discovering new species of animals, not looking into interdimensional beings, aliens, ghosts, and what not. For me, if it turns out to be something like that, it has stepped outside of what cryptozoology is all about into another disipline entirely in which case it is time to let some other type of researcher take over. I am interested in this subject because I am interested in how these possible creatures behave and interact with the world as actual, tangible biological creatures which requires approaching them as such. So no matter how much I think the study of paranormal phenomena has the chance of being valid research some day, it still is not the same thing as cryptozoology.

  25. mystery_man responds:

    I sure hope this thread sticks somewhat to cryptozoology and doesn’t launch into a full blown debate on paranormal studies vs. cryptozoology akin to the creationism thread.

  26. shumway10973 responds:

    Let’s not forget that the paranormal and ufos (yes, I do set them as differing things) are really there. I know plenty of people who try to live normal lives, but have the ability to sense the paranormal. America seems the only country still trying to dismiss or hide anything “known” about ufos or aliens. People with vast knowledge of ufos have disappeared under strange circumstances (which to me means either the ufos or US government didn’t want these things known). I will agree that until we can actually get facts on any one of these things, especially big foot, we can only speculate.

  27. MattBille responds:

    silvereagle wrote:

    “Bigfoot studies occurred at Lawrence Livermore National Labs in the 60’s, and paid for by the DoD. The conclusion of that study was that “Bigfoot cannot be contained, controlled, or communicated with and are thought to be alien in origination””

    I’m sorry, but there’s no way you can ask anyone to accept such a statement without documentation – as in real government documents that can be examined and verfied.

  28. Regan Lee responds:

    Thanks for the facilitation of this intriguing topic Craig.

    Lots of interesting comments, as to be expected!

    As I said, I realize that cryptozoology and the search for Bigfoot in a quest for its scientific validity has a hard enough time being taken seriously. I am completely sympathetic to that, and any “nonsense” about telepathic communcations, UFOs, or any other Fortean/high strangeness events associated with Bigfoot is to be rejected. BUT…

    Having read several dozens of stories about these types of encounters, and knowing, personally, a few people that have had them, what do you do about them?

    Are these people lying? I doubt very much the ones I’ve spoken with personally are. Always possible of course, as with anything. But I doubt it.

    One of the issues here, for me, is: when do you decide, as a researcher, to reject something? A legitimate question.

    If you’re interviewing a BF witness, and they reveal they saw a UFO at the same time, or that they were in some sort of telepathic communication with BF, or some other “weird” event, what do you do?

    Leave it out or ignore it? Accept the BF sighting, but not the other stuff? Reject the whole thing, including the BF sighting, because of the other stuff?

    While I understand the fact of science needing physical, solid evidence that can be measured, etc. if these other things are present, they’re a part of the experience. It isn’t the witnesses or researcher’s “fault” that they are a part of the experience.

    So now what?

    These are valid questions. As Nick Redfern pointed out in his recent articles on this topic, these stories are, and you can’t just reject them because you feel like it. (on his blog UFO Mystic and in this issue of UFO Magazine.)

    Keeping the stories as part of the data isn’t the same as believing in them, or accepting them. But it’s a start towards including all the evidence you find, as part of the research into the phenomena.

  29. LAShiel responds:

    I find it enlightening that the vast majority of people who have commented on this topic do so anonymously. They must hide behind a screen name before they feel bold enough to ridicule and insult others. If you don’t have the nerve to own up to your statements then you are engaged not in an adult discussion, but in a round of gossip. Apparently, the readers of this site prefer to remain cryptids themselves.

    As for the content of the comments, I’d like to point out several issues.

    DWA said, concerning Bigfoot/UFO sightings, “Why have I never read a sighting report yet on a sas website that describes such an occurrence” and “I’ve read a lot of sighting reports, and none of them mentions any paranormal phenomena.” Obviously DWA is not as well-versed in Bigfoot sightings as he/she believes. The Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society and researcher Stan Gordon include on their pages sightings that involve UFOs and other high strangeness. Books discussing the topic include Janet & Colin Bord’s “Bigfoot Casebook” and “Alien Animals,” Thom Powell’s excellent “The Locals,” and my “Backyard Bigfoot.” And this is by no means an exhaustive bibliography.

    DWA also suggests researchers, when confronted with UFO/Bigfoot information, “leave the data out of the database.” Some Bigfoot researchers seem to do this already — but researchers who purge data because they dislike it are guilty of intellectual dishonesty. You cannot call yourself a researcher — or a scientist — if you only consider the evidence that supports your theory.

    Both DWA and MattBille claim that cryptozoology is a hard science. I wish this were true. Unfortunately, it is not. Coining a scientific-sounding name for a type of research does not make it a branch of science. The same goes for calling UFO research “ufology.” Both terms serve as a kind of shorthand, an alternative to more wieldy terms. According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, cryptozoology is “the study of and search for animals and esp. legendary animals (as Sasquatch) usu. in order to evaluate the possibility of their existence.” Zoology, on the other hand, is “a branch of biology.” Tacking “ology” onto the end of a word does not a a scientific discipline make. The sad fact is that neither cryptozoology nor ufology has — or will anytime soon — achieve scientific acceptance.

    In many comments, the word “paranormal” is tossed around like a hot potato. Going back to the dictionary, paranormal means “ not scientifically explainable.” I hate to break this to all of you, but as of right now Bigfoot is scientifically unexplainable, just like UFOs. You cannot scientifically study or explain a phenomenon unless you can repeat it in a controlled environment.

    As a matter of fact, more scientists engage in UFO-related research than Bigfoot research. Stanton Friedman, Bruce Maccabee, William Levengood, Phyllis Budinger..the list could go on for pages. Ufology has amassed just as much physical evidence as Bigfoot research has — perhaps more. To dismiss UFOs as “visions” or “hallucinations” proves only that the person making such a comment lacks sufficient knowledge of the topic.

    We all need to ask ourselves, what is the goal of Bigfoot research? To prove Bigfoot are apes? Or to discover the truth about their nature and behavior? If you want to prove they’re apes, you must ignore evidence. If you want the truth, you must examine all data, no matter how disturbing to your sensitive psyche, and determine the reasons to accept or reject it. Rejecting data based on personal bias, fear, or arrogance serves no purpose, scientific or otherwise.

    In a perfect world, we could all formulate our own theories and discuss them intelligently. Apparently, few people who commented here share my sentiments. If you want to ignore evidence, or ridicule it, that’s your prerogative. But don’t call yourself a researcher or a scientist. And be honest about it, at least. Place a disclaimer on your website, book, or comment stating “I have ignored certain evidence because it displeased me.”

    By the way, Bigfoot can be both a paranormal creature and a flesh-and-blood animal. Only someone who misunderstands the concept of paranormal would assert that flesh-and-blood and UFO-related cannot both apply to Bigfoot. According to this idea, a human being who has a psychic experience would no longer be a flesh-and-blood human being.

    Yes, I see a definite connection between Bigfoot and UFOs, as well as other types of high strangeness. I have interviewed witnesses who had paranormal Bigfoot encounters, but never reported them out of fear of ridicule from Bigfoot researchers. They revealed their strange encounters to me only after lengthy discussions about their “normal” encounters. Instead of sucking up to mainstream science, we should show the witnesses — who have provided the bulk of information about Bigfoot — the respect they deserve by not tossing out data.

    Lisa A. Shiel

  30. MBFH responds:

    Lisa Shiel: you’ve made some valid points there. I agree, just because data doesn’t fit personal perceptions or preconceptions it shouldn’t be ignored. As I said above, it’s not how scientific discoveries are made.

    Personally, I think any scientist who closes the door to any theory or proposal that has a reasonable evidence base to it, e.g. Bigfoot and Unexplained Aerial Phenomenon, isn’t doing their job as a scientist. The number of discoveries across all disciplines that continue to be made indicate that there is a lot more to this world than we can see.

    On your point about anonymity, I have to disagree. I think you ought to be more open minded about this! Some people may use webnames because they have reputations to preserve and protect. It’s all very well having the courage of your convictions to put your name to something but some may have to keep a roof over their heads. I chose a webname as I was new to this and thought it was the thing to do. I see no reason for giving my real name because as far as CZ goes, I’m a non-person: just a public servant who works in the UK and takes part in this great forum as I want to learn and ask questions and venture opinions.


  31. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Hi all,
    not really wanting to get involved in this discussion- I’m with DWA on this one: lets prove the creature exists and then worry about this possibility (in as much as it is a possibility- which, to be quite honest, it isn’t).

    The one thing that got me here was when silvereagle said “fewer than 1% of bigfoot researchers have adequate equipment to verify higher dimensions” (oh, alright EVERYTHING silvereagle wrote- and writes- can’t help but catch my attention…).

    WOW!- who are these people who have equipment that can detect ‘higher dimensions’? Anyone out there who has developed a bit of kit that can detect or record more than the three physical dimensions and the fourth dimension of time be sure to let us know, and be sure to show us the data you have gathered. That sure would be worth seeing!

    Hope I don’t sound too dismissive- afterall how could we not believe someone who regularly chats to bigfoot (in English of course- God’s own language!) who apparently has the wisdom of 180 million years of existence to draw on… 😉

  32. mystery_man responds:

    There have been a few people on this site that have complained and showed annoyance at the lack of using real names. I say, why are you so annoyed? Is it not a person’s right to choose whether they want to use their name or not? People can choose whether their name is in, say, the phone directory, can they not? Are we supposed to blurt out our name to everyone we meet all the time? Why should everyone feel compelled to use their real names and why is it seen as if we are strange if we do not? There are all kinds of reasons why people might not want to use their names. They may wish to have uneeded attention, they may have reputations to protect. Maybe they feel it is not neccesary, not everybody feels they have to build a career or prove anything by being here. They may enjoy the anonymous nature of it, having a blog name has a bit of a romantic feel to it. Or here’s an idea, maybe they just don’t want to. What is the big deal with this? It is annoying to me that people find this to be such a problem. If I don’t want to use my name, that is my perogative and I don’t appreciate being made to feel somewhat belittled because of it. I say for the people who find this to be so odd, just get over it.

  33. things-in-the-woods responds:

    I’m with you mystery_man. Writing under anonymity gives you the freedom to express ideas that you might not be able to do otherwise.

    But more than that, I don’t understand what advantages people feel it gives if we write under our real names. If mystery_man had his real name at the top of his contributions what would that add?

    Nowt, that’s what.

    (And, in any case, on blogs there can never be any guarantee that people are who they say they are).

  34. LAShiel responds:

    Anyone can feel free to speak out anonymously — but don’t expect me to put much stock in anonymous statements. For all I know, these people are 12-year-olds getting their jollies. That’s my point.

    Anonymity has valid uses. If we were discussing prostate cancer, I’d understand wanting to keep it anonymous. But when anonymous people profess to have extensive experience or expertise in a subject, yet refuse to reveal their true selves, they cannot be taken seriously.

    Many of the anonymous folks on this site want cryptozoology to become a branch of science. Science is not anonymous. You can’t have it both ways.

  35. Loren Coleman responds:

    Bigfoot is more than a creature of the wild; it is often what people want to make of it….Bigfoot-UFO cases can be attributed to coincidence, mistakes, and outright hoaxing. Witnesses of unusual phenomena have a tendency to group all the weird things they experience together, whether related or not. A puzzled witness often just doesn’t know how to differentiate one mystery event from another. Adding to the problem was the practice by ufologists in the 1960s and 1970s of asking witnesses to recall everything strange that happened to them in the days before and after their encounter. This unfortunate situation makes separating the valuable Bigfoot case from its UFO underpinnings problematic at best.Loren Coleman
    Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America

  36. MBFH responds:

    LAS: many people on this website aren’t professional scientists but are just expressing an opinion that they think CZ should become a branch of science. In that case they can have it both ways. Either way, if they had to publish something in a peer reviewed scientific journal they would have to do it by name. In this forum, anonymity is fine. Live and let live.

  37. mystery_man responds:

    Not everyone here is able to do that, I’m afraid, LAShiel. Especially those who are also involved in mainstream science who merely come to express their ideas and discuss things. We may want this to be a serious science but who is to say that everyone here wants to be at the forefront of that or make a name for themselves on that. Are you telling me that everyone on any science blog uses their real names? Not sure what is meant by “science is not anonymous”. Cryptozoology is NOT anonymous, look at the people who do use their real names in this field. I also think if people put up their whole name, there is still no guarantee these people are who they say they are. On the net, that comes with the territory. As for 12 year olds “getting their jollies”, I would hope you could tell if that was the case. I have not found too many posters here to be posting along those lines. I happen to be here for the discussions and am quite happy in my job as a science teacher without any unwanted attention. I have knowledge to offer for what it’s worth and if you are not going to put stock in my or other poster’s ideas because they are anonymous, I’d say that is unfortunate.

  38. DWA responds:


    If you used your real name, Aloysius Longhands, and posted stupid ideas, THAT I wouldn’t take seriously.

    People like mystery_man and things-in-the-woods and kittenz and anyone I now feel I’ve slighted by leaving them out: I take them seriously because of THE CONTENT OF THEIR POSTS, not the sound of their names (although I happen to like the ones they picked).

    One problem with the topics on this board: people with good ideas about legitimate topics for study are frequently treated like weirdos by ignoramuses who otherwise seem to Fit Right In to our color-by-numbers, numbnuts society. Those of us who don’t suffer fools gladly use pseudonyms as yet another way not to have to deal with them.

    You’re not a 12-year-old getting his jollies when you have serious ideas worth serious consideration. Not unless that is how you get your jollies.

    Most scientific papers I read – make that all – the names do nothing for me. It’s what’s in them.

  39. Rillo777 responds:

    This discussion has certainly turned interesting! Earlier I posted on the “BF’s are flesh and blood” side, but let me also say that I have read and done some investigating into local sightings that had a “high strangeness” value.

    Likewise I have also investigated ghostly manifestations in my locality. The point is: I believe very much in the spiritual or, if you prefer, paranormal realm. (See my posts on the C vs E thread!)

    My only problem is that there is still no good way to document or examine the cases outside of the witness reports. Even though I’m one of those “C” people, I maintain the importance of scientific analysis. If Bigfoot can appear and disappear at will, or is from some other reality, or is a spirit of some kind, then the scientific investigation becomes virtually useless. That is all I mean to say. If it turns out that BF is something other than a physical, earthbound creature, then we will need to find other ways to attempt to study it if that’s even possible.

  40. things-in-the-woods responds:

    DWA got it exactly right-

    In science what matters is the ideas and the arguments, not the names or the personalities (or rather, what SHOULD matter is the ideas and arguments…).

    If LAShiel wants to write off twelve year-olds because they are twelve year olds thats her loss. I can tell her that I’ve met some twelve year olds who are whole lot more insightful, sensible, and knowledgeable than some adults.

    Also- how does one giving one’s name ensure one isn’t a twelve year old?

    How do I know you aren’t twelve years old Lisa?

    I don’t. But get this- I don’t care.

  41. AngelaBarth responds:

    I have been reading these exchanges concerning the use of pseudonyms with quite a bit of interest. I am one of those persons that fits under the “high strangeness” category most definitely. I always use my real name because my name and what has happened to me… and those closest to me…all belong together. I own every experience. I hide behind nothing. I have my feet in no one’s camp. I have nothing to gain or lose.

    I understand there are those that have careers to lose if they stick their necks out and reveal their identity. I deeply regret our society makes anyone go underground and not allow someone to use the one thing that always defines us…to the very grave…our name defines us. It’s a sad statement that someone could actually lose their livelihood and all they have worked for by merely using their name.

    All the above is just a reflection on using your own name in the face of ridicule and lots of times…animosity. I am very grateful to be able to use my name. I have no fear.

    Angela Barth

  42. silvereagle responds:

    things-in-the-woods states, “The one thing that got me here was when silvereagle said “fewer than 1% of bigfoot researchers have adequate equipment to verify higher dimensions” (oh, alright EVERYTHING silvereagle wrote- and writes- can’t help but catch my attention…).
    WOW!- who are these people who have equipment that can detect ‘higher dimensions’? Anyone out there who has developed a bit of kit that can detect or record more than the three physical dimensions and the fourth dimension of time be sure to let us know, and be sure to show us the data you have gathered. That sure would be worth seeing! Hope I don’t sound too dismissive- afterall how could we not believe someone who regularly chats to bigfoot (in English of course- God’s own language!) who apparently has the wisdom of 180 million years of existence to draw on… ”

    Sorry THINGS, sometimes I write in shorthand thinking that everyone knows that TIME is not the 4th dimension anymore and has not been for at least since 1975, when world renown physicists at UC Berkeley brought scientist Stephen Hawking there on his sabbatical, then they kicked TIME to the 5th dimension and reserved the new 4th dimension specifically to explain the invisibility of BIGFOOT! It also slipped my mind that everyone does not know that higher dimensions implies INVISIBILITY. Consequently, when a branch breaks in the dark at 20 feet from you, you quickly flip up your 3rd generation night vision and verify HIGHER DIMENSIONS. Simple as that. No big mystery. No super secret technology required. Just simple logic using deductive reasoning. Happens to me all the time.

  43. silvereagle responds:

    Sorry, please let me head off the next response. Instead of “branch breaks”, I should of used “any sort of out of place noise”. Such as very soft bipedal footsteps, heavy bipedal footsteps, electronic clicking, growling, hyena/horsey sounding laughter, howling or the sensation of a large electromagnetic cloud/presence.

  44. things-in-the-woods responds:

    Oh i see silvereagle- if you hear an out of place noise you can be sure bigfoot or some higher dimension being is responsible if you don’t see anything that made that noise? I gotcha. Kind of handy that, lack of physical evidence for anything entailing that there is something.

    I’m afraid i’m not convinced by that logic, and not convinced by the absolute lack of possible testing (i.e., how does one distinguish between those cases when a fourth-dimensional bigfoot is responsible and those cases where the hearer of the noise was simply mistaken, or simply missed the normal physical cause of the sound, and so on?).

    However, i do defer to your knowledge of theoretical physics. Still not entirely clear what the new fourth-dimension is supposed to be though…?

  45. DWA responds:

    There is open-minded. And there is more open-minded than a scientist can afford to be.

    Scientists are, of necessity, grounded in testable hypotheses. If a scientist can’t test it, there’s no good way for him to consider it.

    Once the sas is identified, you can sell saucer rides with him for a dollar a pop, if he’ll go with it. I’d just like to stick to flesh-and-blood scientific confirmation. Hasn’t that been difficult enough?

  46. mystery_man responds:

    Well, I have to agree with you on that, DWA. In this particular field, we are going to have to stick with the tools we have and keep the investigation fairly grounded in testable hypotheses if we want this search to be given the scientific credibility I feel it deserves. You are correct when you say science relies on this as well as fallible hypotheses which is to say a hypothesis must be able to be challenged with new evidence to see if it holds water. If something cannot be proven to exist or not exist, then it falls out of the realm of science. At least science as we know it. I feel that some day some of the other phenomena may very well become testable hypotheses, but for now we have to stick with what modern science can provide for us. When zoologists do any field work, they do not have the luxury of falling back on unspecified supernatural phenomena or alien visitations and whatnot. They go out and do the investigation in a thorough, scientific manner, looking for flesh and blood creatures and this is where cryptozoology lies for me.

  47. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: right.

    And silvereagle: I’d say that if your response to this is that OK, then don’t expect science to find the big guy, then that will have to be the way it is. If he can evade the scientific method, we can’t touch him except when he wants us to. “Just believing” makes the sas an individual experience, not a confirmed species.

    And my hunch is that the latter is doable.

  48. kittenz responds:

    Those of us who choose to use nom de plumes ARE using own names. They’re just different names than the ones our parents gave us :).

  49. mystery_man responds:

    And I meant to say in my above post that scientific evidence should be “falsifiable”, not “fallable”! Big difference I guess!:)

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.