Nick Redfern: Proof of Bigfoot
Posted by: Nick Redfern on August 2nd, 2011
Nick Redfern, blogger on our sister site UFOMystic, manages to stir things up when his articles are posted here at Cryptomundo.
See: Nick Redfern on Monsters and Proof.
And: Nick Redfern Further Expounds on Monsters and Proof.
Here’s Nick’s latest:
Lair of the Beasts: Proof of Bigfoot
Monstrous Problems
Just a few days ago I was lecturing in San Antonio, Texas on the subject of my most recent book, The Real Men in Black. Although the lecture was primarily UFO-based, after it was over one of the attendees came up to me and asked: “What will happen if we find Bigfoot?”
Well, I replied that it would be great news for those of that look for such things, as, finally, we would no longer be viewed as the crazies and whackos that many assume us to be!
Afterwards, however, I began to ponder deeper on that particular question. And, doing so raised a number of thought-provoking issues – granted, they’re all highly speculative but, in my mind, they’re worth considering.
Let’s say tomorrow – and in an admittedly incredible stroke of luck – someone out in the woods stumbles upon the newly-dead body of a Bigfoot. They call the police, the FBI, the media, maybe even the White House! And, within hours, the entire world finally knows the amazing truth: Bigfoot is real.
On the plus side, such an astonishing discovery might very well mean that mainstream science and conventional zoology would be prepared to accept the possibility that other “disputed creatures” – such as the beasts of Loch Ness, Scotland; the Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas; Ogopogo; sea-serpents and more – also exist. And, that being so, perhaps this might result in funding from official bodies to assist in the search for such creatures. All of this would be very good news.
Proving the existence of Bigfoot might not be so profitable for everyone, however. What if, upon analysis of the corpse of the creature, Bigfoot is indeed shown to be an unknown type of ape, and a very rare one, too? Might that result in the location where the beast was found being declared “No Go” for most of us, due to the probable scarcity of the creatures?
Might we see whole swathes of forest and woodland indefinitely closed to the American public, all as a result of concerns that we are infringing upon the territory of unique creatures that the government decides to place on the endangered-species list?
Similarly, what about the logging industry? Could official legislation force the industry to suspend its work anywhere, and possibly everywhere, that Bigfoot creatures are seen or even rumored to live? That may be extremely good news for Bigfoot, but not for those significant numbers of people whose livelihood comes from chopping down trees.
Hell, the economy is in bad enough shape already without Bigfoot being responsible for causing additional job-losses!
There’s another scenario, too: let’s address the possibility that we don’t stumble upon the body of a Bigfoot. Instead, let’s hypothesize that a hunter – out in the woods, looking for deer – sees a Bigfoot in his gun-sights, fires, and slays the beast with one shot.
Doubtless, in his world – if in no-one else’s – Mr. Hunter would feel like a real man. And, no doubt, his mind would immediately be filled with images of seeing Bigfoot’s head mounted on his living-room wall. Yep, real macho, I don’t think. But, guess what: that pathetic creature (the hunter, I mean, not Bigfoot) might be in for a Sasquatch-sized surprise.
If, one day, we do secure a Bigfoot corpse, then an in-depth autopsy will be essential. But, can you imagine the uproar and controversy that will manifest if the Bigfoot entities are found – upon study – not to be unknown apes, but a primitive and ancient off-shoot of the Human Race? Rather than slaying a monster, has our hunter actually just committed cold-blooded murder? Could he be tried in court, sentenced, and even jailed? Probably not, due to the overwhelmingly bizarre, and certainly unique, circumstances involved.
However, it would likely be a given that from immediately thereafter laws would be laid down informing people that if you kill a Bigfoot you are technically taking the life of a fellow-human, albeit one distantly related to Homo Sapiens – but still a human, nevertheless. And, duly warned, you may find yourself prosecuted to the full extent of the law if you do choose to go ahead and bag a Bigfoot.
Of course, all of the above is strictly theoretical and is dependent on several things: that Bigfoot exist (Duh!), that they are flesh-and-blood beasts (rather than being paranormal, as some – including me – are inclined not to dismiss as a very real possibility), and that we actually are fortunate enough to find hard proof one of these days.
But if, one day, we do strike gold and secure such amazing evidence, there’s only one thing we can say with any degree of certainty: it’s going to be after Bigfoot is shot, stumbled upon, or discovered that we will see the really interesting – and possibly a few totally unanticipated – developments begin to surface…
About Nick Redfern
Punk music fan, Tennents Super and Carlsberg Special Brew beer fan, horror film fan, chocolate fan, like to wear black clothes, like to stay up late. Work as a writer.
Not sure the point of hating on hunters in this “essay.” I’m not a hunter myself, but I can understand the sport. (It’s been around for at least 50,000 years.) Cold-blooded murder? Please.
Such backhanded insults and hyperbole detract from what are otherwise competent, but kind of obvious, observations.
I don’t really think we have to worry about the endangered species angle. The government agencies seem to be more than capable of coming up with any actually or supposedly endangered animals they want. Besides, after all the trouble finding the first Bigfoot, how long is it going to take to find Bigfoot #2 and establish a range?
Mandors:
I just find it kind of sad that people actually get a kick out of killing an animal for sport. If the hunting is for food, at least it’s serving a purpose. But, taking pleasure in mounting a head of some animal on the wall? There’s clearly a need here for the hunter to “prove” they are a big man. And if they actually need to prove it, then there’s something psychologically insecure about them. Jung would have been able to explain it.
Mandors:
You say: “Cold-blooded murder? Please.”
You’ll note that my comments in the article on the “cold-blooed murder” angle were made in relation to IF Bigfoot is some sort of human offshoot, primitive human. Are you saying that if, hypothetically, that IS the case and it was proved, it WOULDN’T be murder? A good lawyer would strongly argue otherwise – and might well win the case.
Nick,
I personally believe “a good lawyer” may be harder to find than the elusive Bigfoot. You are entitled to your own opinions about the morality of hunting.
Nick,
I love it when people throw out legal terms and don’t know what they’re talking about.
Your question: “IF Bigfoot is some sort of human offshoot, primitive human. Are you saying that if, hypothetically, that IS the case and it was proved, it WOULDN’T be murder?”
YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING.
Legally, if a hunter is in the woods and spots what he, OR SHE, reasonably thinks is a legitimate target, shoots and it turns out not to be that animal, not to be a bigfoot, but an actual HUMAN BEING, that is not murder.
Ask Loren, it happened in Maine about fifteen years ago. A woman was wearing white mittens while hanging out laundry to dry. It was deer season, a guy saw the mittens through the trees and thought it was a white tail. He fired and killed her. It was a horrible accident not murder. I don’t think the guy was even prosecuted.
In terms of hunting in general, as I said, I don’t hunt, but I can understand the primordial thrill of being in the wild, waiting for prey and taking the shot. I don’t know if I’d do it myself, but I can understand it. Like I can understand why a person would be fascinated by little green men in flying discs and dedicating their life to finding them. Or wonder why literally thousands of people have reported seeing the same giant upright creature in the forest.
You don’t like hunting? Cool. People disagree on that, but taking cheap shots on it, doesn’t strengthen your arguments.
Apes and humans are both considered primates. Primates are not hunted as animals in the USA. Therefore, I don’t see any reason for a hunter to see killing a primate as an act of hunting. If a hunter shoots a primate, I believe it should only be in self-defense, where the primate is clearly threatening their life, not just defending their turf. Anyone that’s considering killing a Bigfoot should realize that they are killing a fellow primate, at least. Also, I see the value of a dead Bigfoot as much less than a live one’s, scientifically speaking.
There are no doubt countless ramifications once any one of our favorite cryptids becomes “discovered.” It will affect science, cryptozoology, heck, even the mainstream population.
I think the biggest fear for some is that in effect, we slay a dragon…especially if it’s Bigfoot, we slay one of the big three. There’s always that fascination, we want Bigfoot, Nessie, Yeti, etc. found, but on the other hand, some of it really is the thrill of the unknown. It’s that “what if” that keeps a lot of people interested in this stuff, and when we find one of our cryptozoological icons and prove it to the rest of the world, will it leave us a bit empty because we have conquered one of those iconic unknowns? Who knows–I think it will be different for everyone.
As for laws and effects on the economy and so on, I think there would be some sort of lout, but the world changes with each day and year, and personally I’d be excited to see the local and global impact–even if “bad” outcomes came along with it. That’s part of the hunt for our cryptids…we hunt in the hope we can come up with the “proof” everyone else will believe and let the trees fall where they may. Discovery always brings positive and negative with it.
While that wouldn’t make me shy away from it, I still think it’s interesting to think about just what proving Bigfoot would impact. Zoology, anthropology, genetics, would be the sciences.
AND, though we’ve talked about this before, could proving Bigfoot actually be a death sentence for it? And if it was, and we knew that it was, would we stop hunting? I doubt it.
Mandors:
You say: “You don’t like hunting? Cool. People disagree on that, but taking cheap shots on it, doesn’t strengthen your arguments.”
It wasn’t a cheap shot, it’s what I think, so I said it. I discussed the issue of hunting in relation to Bigfoot and decided to offer my views on hunting for sport.
My decision to do so had no bearing on whether it might or might not strengthen my arguments. I said what I said because I wanted to say it, nothing more. I don’t care if it strengthens or weakens my argument at all. It’s what I think, and I say what I think.
I’m not in the game of sucking up to people, or worrying if I’m saying the right or wrong thing in front of colleagues and peers, or how my arguments look or don’t look. People can agree with me or not, it’s their choice. But I’m still gonna say exactly what I want regardless (even if people think it might weaken my argument) – as I would expect anyone to do.
Re the murder angle, this is what I actually said: “…Rather than slaying a monster, has our hunter actually just committed cold-blooded murder? Could he be tried in court, sentenced, and even jailed? Probably not, due to the overwhelmingly bizarre, and certainly unique, circumstances involved.”
I’m very clearly saying that the FIRST killing would almost certainly NOT provoke any jail-time at all.
But you missed an important point: my comments about the murder issue were made if – hypothetically – new laws were laid down if Bigfoot is found to have a human-quality to it.
In other words, my comment specifically referred to what might happen if someone kills a Bigfoot AFTER new laws are put in place – NOT in the present situation where we don’t really know what they are and there are NO laws at present.
And what I also said was aimed at people who planned on specifically going after Bigfoot to kill it, not accidental events. To demonstrate there’s no misunderstanding, my words are: “…you may find yourself prosecuted to the full extent of the law if you do choose to go ahead and bag a Bigfoot.”
I’m clearly talking about people who – if new legislation is put into place – still deliberately “choose to go ahead” and kill a Bigfoot. If laws are laid down, and Bigfoot is shown to be related to us, and people still choose to go after Bigfoot and successfuly kill one, I think there IS a chance of prosection. That was my specific and only point, which I made clear.
But, as I am also very careful to state towards the end of the article: “Of course, all of the above is strictly theoretical…”
Which is absolutely true. My piece was intended purely as a look at what could happen – IN THEORY. We might never ever get 100 percent proof, in which case laws and legislation wont even matter anyway, and anything and everything in the article (the logging comments, the murder angle, the endangered species legislation etc) will be rendered utterly invalid.
Well, I’m pretty sure that in Lawyerlandia —a.k.a. the United States of America— the hunter would have no problem in alleging he thought the Bigfoot was actually a bear, or that he fired in self-defense.
Maybe the only avenue imaginable would be to create giant natural reservations where no humans are allowed. Then again, if Bigfoots are discovered to have migrating patterns, then things get even more complicated.
I and others have been discussing what would happen if bigfoot was acknowledged for years. In my opinion:
1) They will be given protected status from the very beginning.
2) They will then be labeled as primitive human giving them “rights”.
3) Anyplace that is considered their habitat will be made off limits and given to them as reservations.
3) Greenie weenie fanatics will declare themselves guardians of bigfoot and will control all interaction with them. They will take it upon themselves to decide who will be allowed to study them.
4) People will no longer be able to go “squatchin”. Calling or knocking will be considered harassment and penalized.
5) The very people who have worked out in the field for years studying bigfoot will no longer be allowed to do so because they aren’t “real” scientists.
It won’t matter that it took decades to even find a bigfoot to study. It won’t matter if it takes more decades before getting another one. The rules will be put in place and we will be shut out.
I don’t think we have to worry too much about bigfoot being hunted. They are very good at staying hidden and it will harder than people think.
What we will have to worry about are government idiots who never take into consideration the unintended consequences of their actions.