If Bigfoot Were Real

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 28th, 2016

Bigfoot apparently does a lot of vocalising. This image is inspired by a particular scene you might recognise from the Animal Planet series Finding Bigfoot. Image by Darren Naish, CC BY.

You will, I’m sure, have heard of the unconfirmed North American primate vernacularly termed Bigfoot or Sasquatch.


The cover of Naish (2016): the black figure with glowing eyes is especially relevant to this article.

I have a long-term, unshakeable interest in Bigfoot, and I’ve thought about the subject quite a lot, at least some of these thoughts having appeared here at Tet Zoo over the years. I do not think that the data we have at the moment – this includes tracks, hairs, vocalisations, photos, and the innumerable eyewitness accounts – provides support for the contention that Bigfoot is real, and have come to the conclusion that it is a sociocultural phenomenon: that people are seeing all manner of different things, combining it with ideas, memes and preconceptions they hold in their minds, and interpreting them as encounters with a monstrous, human-like biped. This contention is explored further in my recently-published book, Hunting Monsters (Naish 2016) (and, to prove that I have history, there’s also Naish (2012)).

MonsterTalk: Hunting Monsters

And let me say, by the way, that I would love to be wrong… I still do hope that Bigfoot is real; that the version of the creature endorsed by Krantz (1999), Bindernagel (1998) and Meldrum (2006) is accurate and valid. But, alas.

Regular readers of Tet Zoo – and of certain of the things I’ve published (Conway et al. 2013, Naish 2014) – will be familiar with the idea that cryptozoology overlaps extensively with speculative zoology. Bigfoot might not be a genuine undiscovered primate species (so far as we can tell, right now)… but what if it was? In this article, and perhaps in one or two others that might appear in future, I’d like to play a game and ponder things pertaining to the Bigfoot evidence, such as it is. It is, after all, great fun to wonder what the existence of Bigfoot would mean for field biology and ecology in North America, for conservation and wildlife management, for our understanding of primate evolution and diversity, and for the relationship we have with the rest of the natural world. I’m not about to write about all of those hypotheticals right now, but, yes, they’re entertaining things to think about. In fact, I’d love to see some speculative fiction written along those lines… oh, to be fair, there is some stuff out there like that already: I’m only familiar with Lee Murphy’s books.

Incidentally, an interesting thing I’ve learnt about Bigfoot while writing this article (and others) is that there’s scarcely any Bigfoot imagery online which is marked for re-use: everything is protected by copyright and unavailable for free use by others. Make of that what you will. In the interests of making the world a better place, the pictures I created for this article are all released for use via a CC license.

Hunting Monsters: Cryptozoology and the Reality Behind the Myths

Biologically consistent, homogenous vocalisations would be documented across North America. Bigfoots purportedly make noises, and a standard part of modern Bigfoot lore is that people might be able to ‘call in’ or even communicate with Bigfoots by making wails, screams, roars or howls, or by hitting trees or rocks to make far-carrying percussive whacks, these sounds resembling the noises that are attributed to the creature. What’s notable is that these vocalisations are phenomenally diverse: the ‘Ohio howls’, ‘Samurai chatter’, the whoops, whistles, growls and howls attributed to this animal well exceed what we’d expect for a single animal species that communicates over long distances, and there’s nothing approaching homogeneity of the sort present across known primate species.

Indeed, some of the most incredible of these sounds – if you’ve never heard the ‘Sierra sounds’ or ‘Samurai chatter’ recorded by Ron Morehead, well, you’re in for a treat – sound nothing at all like the others that have been reported and recorded, and have only been heard exclusively in one small area. Even allowing for the possibility of regional and local dialects, of ontogenetic, annual or seasonal variation, or of this diversity being linked to a diversity of functional roles (close communication vs long-distance communication, mating calls vs parental vocalisations and so on), the noises and calls are absolutely all over the place and not in the least bit homogenous from one region to the next, as they should be if we’re dealing with an unknown primate species.

The conclusion must be that the noises have diverse origins, by which I mean that they are mostly sounds made by known animal species, including cattle, coyotes (and their hybrids) and humans. And, yes, I think that many of the more incredible Bigfoot sounds – ‘Sumarai chatter’ and other speech-like utterances among them – were generated by people.

Read the rest of Darren Naish’s article here.

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.

26 Responses to “If Bigfoot Were Real”

  1. Peter Von Berg responds:

    Well OK, he makes some excellent points. And the things he finds unsatisfactory I do too. But how does he explain Patterson Gimlin or the latest commentary by the filmmaker of the caribou Far North documentary ? So there we are. The whole thing is still a mystery and a puzzle.

  2. Becho responds:

    I have read your book and I thought the chapter on Sasquatch was highly prejudicial. In fact, the statement above that says they couldn’t possibly have different vocalizations in different areas is highly prejudicial. That is your pre-conceived notion. I know they have different cultures merely by the varying number of knocks that I hear. Up north they knock once to alert the presence of humans. Down around where I live they knock three times. This is consistent and cultural. Up north they have elaborate and amazing vocals. Down here they are more standard and common to what I’ve heard on the internet. Up there the structures are amazing, down here they are practically non-existent. That suggests cultural differences combined with sophisticated intelligence. Down here they are closer to civilization and thus are much more cautious. Up north they feel less pressure and thus express themselves more openly and it’s created an artistic culture. I’m sorry, but you have not studied the subject with an objective mind.

  3. Fhqwhgads responds:

    “But how does he explain Patterson Gimlin or the latest commentary by the filmmaker of the caribou Far North documentary?” Woolheater can speak for himself, of course, but if I were asked that, I would say that those two pieces of evidence are interesting, but scarcely conclusive.

    As for the PG-film, the main things that make it suspect is the fact that in order for it to be real, Patterson and Gimlin had to be almost immediately successful in finding a Bigfoot and taking good pictures, a feat which no one has come close to duplicating sense then, in spite of countless hours spent in the woods by people trying to do just that. Many of these are EXACTLY the same kind of experienced hunters who is called a “highly credible witness” if he comes back with so much as a subjective and untestable claim to have seen, heard, or smelled something. Patterson and Gimlin’s early, and so far unique, “success” is suspicious for the same reason this exchange in the movie THE JERK could be played for laughs:

    Mother: Navin!
    Navin R. Johnson: Mommy, Daddy! How did you find me?
    Father: We don’t know. This is the first place we looked.

    Meanwhile, the PG film looks good, but most of the claims about it are exaggerated. For instance, I’ve seen several documentaries that claim that an actor failing to precisely reproduce the walk on the PG film somehow proves something, but NEVER, not in one single instance, was it established that the actor could precisely reproduce the walk OF ANOTHER HUMAN. Could he walk like Wilt Chamberlain or Shaq or Johnny Depp? If not, his inability to mimic the Bigfoot walk means exactly nothing. At any rate, this says more about the particular actor than about the subject of the PG film. It would be practically impossible to exactly reproduce The Immaculate Reception, but that doesn’t mean the play was actually pulled off by some other species.

    As for the caribou film, that’s even worse. If it looks like a man, but someone who claims to have worked as a cameraman (claims which I hope have been independently confirmed) comes out TWO YEARS after the video went viral and says that no, there were no humans over there, I see no reason to believe him. If he was unaware of the speculation regarding the video, it would explain why he was silent for so long, but it would also make it likely that the details of who was where exactly that day would have become fuzzy in his memory, since he would have no need to remember it. It seems much more likely that he was aware of the speculation, though, and simply decided it would be in his interest to tell people what they want to hear.

    I’ve seen that done by people with less to gain. I was on a tour of a rebuilt plantation house a few years ago; the house had been pretty well emptied of furniture and its lower level destroyed by high river water, so that almost all the furnishings were “period” but shared no history with the house, and the house itself had been moved and extensively repaired by the CCC. Anyhow, one of the tourists asked the park ranger if the house was haunted. The park ranger’s first response was to casually dismiss it – not as though he were hiding something, in a casual, disinterested way. I should also add that the house was bright and sunny, without the creepy feeling to it that some old buildings have. The tourist persisted, though, and the ranger dutifully added anecdotes so that the tourist could feel satisfied that the house was indeed haunted. The ranger did this, even though he will not be invited to speak at conferences or appear on TV shows and will not get a book out of it – all of which are things this cameraman would have known are real possibilities for him.

    Anyway, the upshot of it all is that whether taken individually or as a whole, these constitute suggestive evidence, not definitive proof – enough to formulate a hypothesis, but not enough to establish a fact.

  4. Fhqwhgads responds:

    Sorry for the grammatical snafus. Multitasking without proofreading leads to bad grammar.

  5. DWA responds:

    There is much much more homogeneity in all aspects of sasquatch evidence – vocalizations most especially – than Naish (or anyone who hasn’t studied this much) thinks. One should also note that even should there be a lot of “all over the place” there is a lot that runs to a type, and it is done in science, you know, to reject outliers and focus on commonalities.

    Plus. It’s not very scientific, at all, to focus on vocals when we have an unprecedented – for anything, that is, that hasn’t been proven to be exactly what the evidence made it appear to be – body of closely interlocked physical descriptions and *forensic evidence* (footprints). I haven’t read this whole thing yet, but that unpromising start tells me that when I do, I’ll simply find more stuff easy to refute. On scientific grounds.

    (Yepper, this is a guy not properly informed trying hard to persuade himself he’s right.)

  6. DWA responds:

    There’s really so many holes in Naish’s article that I got exhausted thinking about typing the responses. But it’s all neatly summed up in his last paragraph:

    “The main takehome from what I’ve said here – and I’m repeating what many other scientists have said before me – is that an awful lot of good evidence would have been documented by now if Bigfoot were real. As interesting and intriguing as all those eyewitness reports are, we are simply not seeing the evidence we should, nor is the evidence we have at all convincing. So… why is that?”

    Well…why doesn’t one look at that question *in the way a scientist would*?

    First of all, “repeating what many other scientists have said before me” is nothing more than the argument from authority. As any true scientist knows: at the frontiers of the discipline, most scientists don’t know squat. Repeating what they’ve said, after making the same errors you have, doesn’t exactly carry any water. Second of all, “an awful lot of good evidence would have been documented by now if Bigfoot were real” is nothing more than an assumption, by its very nature backed by zero evidence. In fact an awful lot of good evidence *has been documented.* This is why Bindernagel – a source he cites, but has clearly not read well – calls the sasquatch a scientific discovery that simply hasn’t been recognized yet. As in, *it’s been made.* (And Bindernagel not only copiously substantiates this assertion, but cites numerous other examples, showing that this isn’t exactly a rare occurrence in science.) Why would he say that, Darren? No curiosity there, have we. (Can’t help but note, Darren, that *you didn’t even read that book.*) And no, none of those scientists that you are repeating show any curiosity either; they say pretty much what you have, Darren. And I can refute it, myself, just from what I’ve read. And this of course says that, third of all, *we are in fact seeing just the evidence we should be seeing,* and that this evidence does not convince one who has not been shown proof means nothing, as any true scientist…

    …SHOULD know.

    Proof requires following up evidence. Here it is, Darren, in a nutshell:

    1. Copious encounter literature, consistent in the extreme on characters commonly known only to primate experts, that place the creature clearly in the Hominidae;
    2. …that dovetail, in the extreme, with copious *forensic evidence* on which this article shows you to be amazingly unfamiliar; and
    3. Scientists, *showing their work,* who have clearly demonstrated that the evidence points to an animal unconfirmed by science.

    If you’re a scientist…you get this. If you aren’t…you don’t. Simple as that.

  7. DWA responds:

    OH. And the really really bad thing: this article was in *Scientific American,* of all places. Why are they publishing stuff that very obviously fails to get how scientific inquiry even works?

  8. dconstrukt responds:

    sorry guys… he puts together a MUCH more SOLID case and argument than ANYONE else posting here who believes it and he showed you specific’s to back up each point.

    something NONE of the “believers” typically do. They just rant about how and why they believe its’ real, without any supporting facts.

  9. Becho responds:

    Thank you for your comments. You articulated perfectly the lack of objectivity and apparent ignorance of evidence by Naish. I have read Bendernagel’s Book, The Discovery Of Sasquatch, and it’s an excellent book. If you were to take the lessons from Bendernagel’s book and apply them, objectively, to Naish’s conclusions, his conclusions would be cut to ribbons.

  10. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt: nope. The ‘argument’ offered here is not argument at all. Not an opinion. A fact. Arguments must be backed by evidence; and the evidence *contradicts* Naish.

    The evidence points to the existence of the animal. Again, not an opinion. A fact. Any dissenting opinion indicates that one hasn’t read up. Naish…hasn’t. His take on this isn’t worthy of a scientist. Naish’s ‘argument’ is one only to people who haven’t studied the evidence.

    Becho: right. Bindernagel’s take…is the take of a scientist.

  11. Goodfoot responds:

    Correct, Becho. The author would benefit greatly from doing more homework. There are earwitnesses to “Samurai chatter” all over the place. I heard it in New Mexico, almost exactly ten years ago.

    I don’t mean he lacks for not having talked to me, but he sure could have benefitted from talking to Scott Nelson, among others.

  12. DWA responds:

    What Naish suffers from is what most ‘experts’ do when something is submitted to their ‘expertise’ that they can’t explain, which is the burning need to come up with quick ways to dismiss it, because they just don’t have the time to research something that they have cemented into their heads isn’t real. It’s like I’m not gonna research fairies to tell you my opinion on them. I have never seen evidence telling me fairies are real; I doubt you have, either, so I’m not gonna waste my time.

    (Who knows? There’s my opinion.)

    But unless someone points me to one…there hasn’t been a book compiling the evidence for fairies. There have been numerous books (and databases) doing the same for sasquatch and yeti. What they compile is evidence, by any objective definition of the term. Anyone who disagrees…doesn’t know what evidence is, and this isn’t an opinion. (Know how I know it isn’t an opinion? Evidence.)

    When scientists, clearly using their science, have presented a powerful case for something, one simply isn’t in the game who doesn’t address their arguments and refute them.

    Mr. Naish.

  13. DWA responds:

    And as to Samurai Chatter:

    Anyone who can’t dismiss the accounts by associating them – evidence, please – with an identified known source, has some kind of, I believe in England, Mr. Naish, it’s called “cheek,” just to dismiss them because, you know, all this [holds head] STUFF to deal with…why it’s all over the MAP dither dither…

    Anyone who dismisses the vocal accounts on that kind of tossoff assumption…must not have heard Homo sapiens lately. You know, another, wait for it, primate.

  14. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA – the problem is people (who believe), like you, will just say “nope, the facts say the animal is real”

    and that statement is supposed to be taken as what? fact?

    just because you say it?

    what facts? what proof? what evidence?

    show the facts, the proof, the evidence to support this (outlandish) claim.

    thats how this is done. You can’t sit there and say stuff like you are, without having the facts to support your position. Until you guys post these “facts” you guys keep claiming, your position has no strength or legitimacy.

    If one looks at the content of this site, and then is asked if they think its real or not, I’d bet you a donut they’d say its not real.

    So the facts don’t support this.

    I’m not quite sure what “facts” you keep referring to because you never tell anyone what these facts are. 🙂

    why not make a post (here) sharing YOUR view and WHY you believe with your facts?

    The guy in this post we are talking about took the time to do so… thats why you can have a conversation about it like we are based on the facts here. When you guys just say “facts support its a real animal” but offer zero to support this…. there’s nothing to really discuss… other than wondering what “facts” you keep alluding to but never mention.

    the position has got more holes than a block of swiss cheese. 🙂

  15. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt: Nope.

    Facts are facts, regardless who denies them. I’m no “believer;” I don’t believe in *anything.* (Including Him; ESPECIALLY Him.) I demand evidence, for anything you tell me. I demand an explanation, of everything. The facts of the case say Naish is wrong and no, he has taken NO time on this, whatever you may think. Not compared to me, he hasn’t. And not compared to the very scientists he cites and, did you notice this? shows not one bit why and how they’re wrong. Science fail, Mr. Naish.

    I know the facts; Naish doesn’t. At the frontiers of science, the only ones who know …are the ones doing the work. Naish’s “argument” doesn’t have enough cheese to qualify as cheese; it’s *all* hole.

    I’ve shown my work, beyond many many times here. Gotta do what I’ve done to get where I’ve gotten; such is the case at the frontiers of science.

  16. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA – hahaha…. of course the “nope” answer…. thats what we expect with you guys. you make the blanket statements, expect everyone to believe you just because you snapped your fingers, and much like a circus magician, you tease and tease but can *never* reveal the truth. its comical… 🙂

  17. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt. dconstrukt, dconstruktdconstruktdconstruktdconstruktdconstruktdconstrukt.

    What are we gonna do witcha, meng?

    Are you really expecting The Big Reveal? OK, here it comes: aliens are real! THREE OF THEM ARE AT MY HOUSE NOW HAVING A BEER.

    Believe that? Well why in the heck do you think WE would think you’d know “the truth” if we laid it out right in front of you? WHICH WE HAVE BEEN DOING. And look at the response we get.

    This is about facts. OK? Sightings, facts. Footprints, facts. The incredible – for something that ain’t real – consistency of both, and perfect science-couldn’t-do-it-better dovetailing of one into the other: FACT. That any rational person – reading and thinking about the evidence – would bet AGAINST a near 100 percent certainty that this assembled data represents what it appears to? That they would not make such a crazy bet is about as close to an established fact as one can get without being one.

    But there is one problem, my friend, and you suffer from it: they are waiting for someone else to Reveal Truth to them, and not doing the reading and thinking for themselves. This is a scientific frontier, mon frere. and at those, almost all scientists are ignorant. The only ones who know are the ones doing the work. The ones Waiting For Truth aren’t gonna get it until they get proof; and proof is for the ignorant who need it, not for the knowledgeable who know what is going on.

    You can continue to insist that the evidence either doesn’t exist or means nothing. And as long as you do, and don’t do the work for yourself, NOTHING I could post here will change your mind.

    You don’t think I know that?


  18. dconstrukt responds:


    sorry, I have a brain, common sense and a mouth.

    god forgive me for not listening to everything anyone says and questioning things.

    god forgive me.

    in the time it took you to think about that reply, and type it, you could have easily typed out a post on here stating the reasons you believe this thing is legit and real and what led to that conclusion, satisfying everyones curiosity on why you believe this so strongly…

    But sadly… you didn’t.


    you keep resisting the call to action…

    instead what we’re left with is essentially summed up as this:

    “hey, go find out on your own”

    but… you had to sugarcoat it a bit to not come off like you’re THAT grumpy… right? 🙂

    the truth is subjective… it’s whatever you believe.

    just like henry ford says that whatever you believe it is… if you think things suck, they do… if you think things are great,they are.

    so the truth is whatever you believe… doesn’t mean its the real truth, but its the truth to you…. and thats when people may get curious on your position and beliefs… and then ask you why…

    they are curious what led to that belief.

    nothing wrong with that.


    About your other genius piece of psychologic work there… Freud would be rolling over in his grave…


    dead wrong.

    I’m looking for more facts so i can make up my own mind.

    Somehow you pulled the “I’m looking for someone to reveal the truth to them” card and sadly my man, it’s SO far from being correct, there’s no point in me even addressing it anymore… besides, Freud be mad for even wasting time discussing your genius piece of work there. 🙂

  19. DWA responds:

    “god forgive me for not listening to everything anyone says and questioning things.

    god forgive me.”

    Well, gotta agree there. You’re not questioning a single thing some people tell you.

    “instead what we’re left with is essentially summed up as this:

    “hey, go find out on your own”

    For reasons I have copiously pointed out here. (The most important: you aren’t listening to anything I tell you, so why bother.) If you are waiting…you are in the dark.

    “you keep resisting the call to action…”

    Actually, I pointed out how *you* are. Right? “Action” here equals “education.” I am telling you what YOU WILL THINK! when you do what I have done. How do I know? NO ONE who has done what I have done…disagrees with me.

    “in the time it took you to think about that reply, and type it, you could have easily typed out a post on here stating the reasons you believe this thing is legit and real and what led to that conclusion, satisfying everyones curiosity on why you believe this so strongly…

    I HAVE TYPED OUT THOUSANDS, RIGHT ON THIS SITE, including right here on this post.

    And THIS is the response I get, and I say again: why bother.

    I know. You don’t. And there’s an easy and fun! way to get where I am; and an easy and …very…not…fun way to stay where, well, you are.

  20. Becho responds:

    DWA and Dconwhatever,
    Thanks for that exchange. I think that you’re wasting your time DWA. When I started on this endeavor is was by chance that I heard a local recent story of a sighting. From the start I gave it a 50/50 chance of being real or not. I wasn’t going to judge one way or the other. I wanted to find out for myself. I did the study and as I studied I started to lean toward believing. But, I also must admit that I had rocks, a limb, smelled and heard knocks and still was holding onto my skepticism. The percentage of belief was almost 100% after all of that, but not quite.
    Since then I’ve only seen them six times (became a believer before I finally saw one, by the way) and I have almost weekly encounters of some sort. So I don’t blame a person being somewhat skeptical.
    But being a skeptic is different than suffering from cognitive dissonance. People who dismiss the overwhelming evidence as hoaxing, misidentification or delusional without really considering the possibility that it’s real will never accept this new paradigm.
    In a way, I don’t mind that so much. I have contact with them in a very famous area for Sasquatch and there are goobers all over the place screaming and knocking (humans are easily discerned from the real deal) and I’m sure my forest friends are at least slightly annoyed by that. What would happen if they were accepted by more goobers as real? I hate to consider that. Many of them I consider friends and I worry about that.
    So I guess what I’m saying is maybe it’s good that humans have such a bizarre belief system.
    It protects my forest friends and keeps the forest a little less noisy.

  21. dconstrukt responds:

    oh… this is getting good…

    so mr echo…

    you apparently “see” your “forest friends” 6 times… but have no photos, no video, no audio, no nothing?

    where did you see them?

    or is that top secret and you need special level 5 clearance from the BFRO or something?

    oh …and… there is no “paradigm” here… its you believing something and have no facts/evidence/proof to support it.

    if you did, I’d be jumping right on that train my man.

    and again we aren’t talking about you believing something that is already known and proven… this is something that we can all say is extra-ordinary…

    and with that, you need to have extra-ordinary facts to support the claim.

    cuz thats all it is now… a CLAIM.

    But you don’t… do you?

    without facts, evidence, proof to support the claim and make it real, its nothing more than a claim.

    Without others seeing what you saw, how can you expect someone to believe you? maybe if they KNEW you, your character etc. they might… but many won’t.

    and heck mr echo, god forbid you grab some hair that might be around from them, to prove your “friends” aren’t a figment of your imagination…

    Sadly, there’s nothing here to support what you’re saying….

    I could say… “oh cool story…”

    But we’re talking about you “seeing” something multiple times and having weekly “encounters” with something that hasn’t been proven to be real… so I’d could think that you might be a bit off your rocker . 🙂

    Alas… these are just stories, fables until they can be supported by facts.

    And for the record mr echo, i think it COULD be real, however I am *highly* skeptical, as I should be, with the overwhelming amount of BS stories people talk, the overwhelming hoaxing and “blurry” video (in 2016 nonetheless).

    99% of the stuff I’ve seen, heard or read is garbage and hoaxing… but then what about the other 1%?

    And I think there’s maybe 1 or 2 legit videos out of the entire lot… (freeman and PG) those to me, are the only even remotely possibly legit ones… the rest I’ve seen are garbage and easily seen as hoaxes.

  22. DWA responds:

    OK. If you’re satisfied, you are.

    I wouldn’t be.

    (Not enough curiosity to even wonder why I say that. Wow that.)

  23. DWA responds:

    Becho: you’re never wasting your time when you’re leaving stuff behind you that can educate people who are interested. I never write to convince the person I am arguing with. I write to show the curious how to go about this.

    The incurious believe that science runs on proof. It doesn’t. When a scientist sees something, IT IS A FACT to him. He observes repeatedly to ensure that his initial observation was correct. He collects additional data. But no one else’s opinion matters; it is only his observations and what he can learn from them that matter. People who don’t understand this show they don’t by all the importance they place upon proof. A scientist only needs proof to persuade the ignorant (e.g., the people paying him). His observations are enough for him. Observations advance science, not proof.

    Very few people posting here are interested enough to go about this the way a scientist goes about it. If you have not done the following things, you are unqualified to present an opinion, unless you have seen one:

    1. Read EVERY REPORT you can, and we’re talking hundreds, at the very minimum;
    2. Thought, at extreme length and depth, about every one, cross-indexing it with your experience of the world;
    3. Drawn commonalities from the reports that seem to you legitimate based upon 1. and 2.; and
    4. Come to conclusions that make sense based upon 1. and 2. and 3.

    You don’t have to have seen one of these animals or come across tracks (although I have done the latter). All the information is out there, and public…

    …including the opinions of directly qualified scientists, showing their work, who vouch for the evidence.


    Anyone who keeps coming back at me, like I need to personally convince him…is not a person whose opinion concerns me. He can’t find the things I could not have pointed him to more clearly, and, well, I wish him luck. I’m just glad I’m not him.

  24. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: “The incurious believe that science runs on proof. It doesn’t.”

    Wow! You NAILED it. Well done!

  25. dconstrukt responds:

    LOL… of course it runs on proof. (proof to me i’m referring as data)

    science runs off data… collecting, observing it and interpreting it.

    you’re a doctor…

    you say you’ve discovered a cure for cancer.

    without proof/data to support it, who will believe you?

    everything is based on the data.

    you make decisions based on the data… not opinion.

    without the data to prove your position, you have no position, just an opinion.

    and opinions are like a$$holes… everyones got one.


  26. Goodfoot responds:

    If nobody believes it, it’s not a fact. True or false?

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|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.