A few days ago I had the good fortune to speak at length with well known Fortean author Nick Redfern. Over the course of the interview, Redfern took on several topics that should be of interest to readers here, although I'm certain much of it will be controversial to many readers too. Redfern, largely due to his experiences in Britain, has come to view the bigfoot phenomena as likely having something paranormal in it. (Nick, by the way, has a new book on this very topic, There's Something in the Woods. He keeps a blog of the same name dedicated to bigfoot-type phenomena here.)
Usually, that's about enough to stop most bigfoot researchers right there. I hope people will be able to keep an open mind and actually read what Nick had to say, because I think what he's saying is worth hearing and judging for ourselves. As I have said before on this blog, in a post concerning the intersection of bigfoot and UFOs:
But here’s the deal on that -- we really don’t know anything about what’s going on out there. Some of these details that have been historically winnowed out of bigfoot reports, details like the subjective response of witnesses, how their bodies felt, their emotional reaction; and physical details that don’t fit our understanding of the world, like the occasional light, and who knows what else -- these things get edited right out of the report. We have already been looking at the idea of infrasound on this blog. It’s very difficult now to reconstruct older cases that might be helpful in figuring out whether infrasound has anything to do with bigfoot because the clues have been edited out or repressed. . . Thirty years ago, we had no rational conceptual basket for the experiences that go along with the infrasound hypothesis, so rather than collect the data, we (almost always) threw it out. The same thing could be happening with the lights and other trappings of UFO [and let me add now, other strange] encounters. There could be data here that, thirty years from now, will have a rational explanation, but we just don’t have the mental framework to grasp it now. We should be meticulous in our collection of the data. If the witness is otherwise reliable, and especially when there is physical evidence too, let’s take it all in. I can almost guarantee that, down the line, the things that weird us out now will look different later on.And that's what I really want any researchers who might read this to take away from it. You'll see Nick make the same kind of call -- let's not throw anything away. Let's gather all the evidence, even if it's weird, and put it all together. What looks strange to us today may one day have a completely rational explanation.
I enjoyed the chance to hear Nick's views and I have to tell you, with some of the problems we have in bigfoot research, ie, finding enough physical evidence to prove bigfoot exists, I'm downright sympathetic to his views. Whatever your views, I hope you'll enjoy the interview too.
Now, without further adeiu, here's part one of my interview with Nick Redfern.
DB: What I'm interested in is exactly what you were talking about on Paranormal Radio with Captain Jack -- bigfoot accounts with "high strangeness" in them. It's been a kind of obsession of mine for quite a while, though I've never.. I may have been near a few bigfoot creatures before, but I've never experienced any "high strangeness" stuff.You can see part two of the interview here.
Nick: Hmm..
DB: That I noticed anyway..
Nick: Okay.
DB: But I get a lot of other people telling me stuff that does seem strange. You may remember I had a couple of interviews up from people who had very strange things happen during their encounters..
Nick: Yeah.
DB: So if you've got any stuff like that I'm interested in hearing about it. And I'm also especially interested in any bigfoot encounters you might have had yourself.
Nick: Okay. Yeah, I mean I can talk about a few weird things that have happened. Do you want me to just sort of start at the beginning as to how I came to this conclusion and the journey along the way and things like that?
DB: Sure, that'd be great!
Nick: Okay. Well basically, my interest in cryptozoology goes back to when I was about five years old. And my parents took me on holiday one summer to
Scotland, and we spent a day at Loch Ness. I've still got a fragmentary memory of this story of my dad telling me about how, you know, there was supposedly this dinosaur living in the depths of Loch Ness. And, you know, when you're five years old you're not necessarily old enough to appreciate all the intricacies of the story. But you're old enough to know, "Wow, there's a monster living in that lake!"
DB: Right
Nick: And so that really sort of sparked my interest, and even now as I said I can remember a few things from that day, but having been to Loch Ness again on several occasions.. You know I think one of the reasons why it captures people's imagination so much is the fact that it looks spooky. You know, it's a huge loch, very very black water, it's got an old ruined castle on it's shores. It looks atmospheric, and I think, you know, that was one of the things that sort of captured my interest and imagination. And over the years, you know, from that age upwards, fourteen, fifteen, I began reading books on the subject, the ones that were around at that particular time in the late 70s early 1980s. You know there actually weren't that many books available, in England at least -- a lot of imports. It was very much an underground subject, a fringe subject. But I started subscribing to newsletters and things like that, and then, when I finished school, I went into journalism. I worked as a feature writer for a rock music magazine in England called Zero. And so what happened was they taught me the inside and out of journalism. I was still developing this interest in, I guess, the UFO subject, cryptozoology, and the paranormal. And so I thought, "Why not try and combine the two?" So I started writing for magazines and newsletters -- of course this was pre-internet era. It was just somebody would put their own stapled newsletter together and send 50 copies out to different people or whatever. So I used to do a lot of that. And then that kind of progressed into more mainstream journalism writing, and then also doing crypto and Fortean stuff for mainstream publications. From there, that led to the books.
DB: Uh huh.
Nick: And so, what basically happened over time was -- where I was living back in England, which was an area called Staffordshire, a county in England -- I was doing a weekly column for a newspaper called the Chase Post. And this brought in a lot of reports from people who, you know, they'd seen like a black cat, a big large black cat running across the road late at night, or they'd seen an out of place animal. Something like a wolf, for example. People would see wolves, wallabies and things like that, kangaroos. But I would say for every, I don't know, twenty or thirty reports that would pour in, there would be one or two which would fall into the classic bigfoot type of category.
DB: Really?
Nick: Now of course, when you talk about bigfoot, everybody knows the bigfoot, the sasquatch of the Pacific Northwest, or other parts of the US, or the Yeti of the Himalayas, and then you've got the Yowie in Australia, and etc., but bigfoot and Britain aren't two words that spring to mind collectively. You know, when you're investigating and thinking about these things.
DB: Right
Nick: I mean Britain itself, to put it into perspective, England, Scotland, and Wales combined, in terms of the square mileage, is actually smaller than the state of Texas where I now live.
DB: Yeah.
Nick: So it's not that big a country, even though there are a lot of wild areas and forests and woods, etc. And the population is 60 million, which is a pretty substantial population for a small country. And so the idea that a bigfoot or a colony of bigfoot creatures could be roaming around the British Isles sounds bizarre and preposterous, and yet the witness reports are no less credible than anything we're getting from the US, or China, or India, or wherever, Russia. So I began looking into these reports and, just to go back to the big cats, I mean everybody who is interested in cryptozoology has heard these stories of big cats roaming the British Isles.
DB: Right.
Nick: And that's quite plausible.
DB: Yes.
Nick: A lot of reports, a lot of escapees, that sort of thing. But when it comes to bigfoot, then you really are in a whole different category. Now, one of the things I found is that many of the bigfoot reports that, not just came to me, but that came to other researchers as well -- what I did, as well as digging through my reports that people would give to me, I went back and looked through the old literature from years ago and found a lot of very similar reports, where people had said things like they'd seen a giant gorilla in the woods fifty years ago.
DB: Right.
Nick: Or what they described as a man-like bear being seen in the woods, that sort of thing. And I began to realize that, to my surprise, the number of bigfoot reports in Britain was probably much bigger than anyone else had probably previously realized. I mean, certain areas of the British Isles were teaming with reports. I would say I've got upwards of, probably, low three figures from all across the British Isles and spanning a period of about eleven centuries. The earliest one is literally from about 900AD, something like that.
DB: Uh huh.
Nick: Now, several things stand out when you talk about the British bigfoot. One is that in many of the reports, the areas in which they've been seen has some sort of significance. Let me explain what I mean by that. A lot of bigfoot sightings in Britain have been made in the vicinity of ancient stone circles, prehistoric burial mounds, and areas that ancient man perceived as being of some significance. Whether magical, cultural significance, whatever. One classic example is a place, ironically not far from where I was born and grew up, called the Cannock Chase. The Cannock Chase is this large area of woodland, or forestland, in the county of Staffordshire that I mentioned earlier, where I was born. And there's an area on the Cannock Chase called the "castle ring." Now the castle ring is an ancient structure built by ancient man, I think something like four or five thousand years ago. There are all sorts of theories concerning why it was built, what it's significance was and is..
DB: Uh huh.
Nick: But the interesting thing about castle ring is that it has been the sight of nine or ten bigfoot-type encounters, that I'm aware of at least.
DB: Hmm!
Nick: This includes people seeing shadowy forms in the woods, bright red eyes -- I actually had a very weird experience myself once over there when staking the area out, and saw what looked like a flitting, shadowy form with these two red eyes. Now of course people can say, "You're seeing things that you're looking for," and what are the chances of something being in the area at the time you're looking for it. I would agree with those sentiments and those statements. And that's why I think the British bigfoot, at least, is different in some ways to some of the reports from elsewhere. It is the case that they, you know, turn up in these prehistoric locations, and sometimes people are looking for them. It's almost as if these creatures know and manifest for them. Now I know to some people, they think, "Oh, Nick's off on his paranormal tangent again," and there's like a little rolling of eyes and shaking of heads..
DB: Yeah.
Nick: But I mean, I can only tell the story as I know it from my perspective in interviewing the witnesses, and I would say I've probably got.. probably at least twenty or thirty reports where these creatures have been seen in areas that are standout areas, stone circles, places like that. Now you could argue on the one hand, Britain is a very old country, and you don't have to drive too far anywhere to find an old castle, or an old stone circle, which is quite true. But when you specifically get these reports of people seeing these creatures within like ten or twenty feet of these stone formations time and again, and the witnesses don't know each other, then I think we have to conclude, or I do at least, that something weirder is afoot.
DB: Yeah.
Nick: Now there are other reports, for example, of bigfoot having been seen in the UK. One case, that I can think of, in the same location as a crop circle. And there was evidence at this crop circle where there'd been some sort of ritualistic activity going on. For example, there were five peacock feathers laid out, like in the form of a pentagram.
DB: Hmm!
Nick: And, of course, if you go to wikipedia or some search like that you'll find that there's a lot of legends and folklore, not all positive and good ones, attached to peacock feathers and the peacock itself. So to find a report where somebody had seen this, like they described it like a huge, or large chimpanzee racing across the road late at night from the same area where rites and rituals have been undertaken inside a crop circle. Then, again, I find it difficult to, kind of, separate these various phenomena.
DB: Uh huh.
Nick: You know, is it just coincidence that bigfoot has been directly opposite where a crop circle was made and there were some weird rites and rituals afoot? I think it's very very unlikely that there wasn't a connection. Now, to expound upon that, there are people within the UK, for example -- and I've tried this a couple of times -- who tried ritualistic magic to try and conjure these things up. And there have been a number of cases where people, including me, have basically gone out into the woods -- I actually detail this in my latest book, There's Something in the Woods..
DB: Uh huh?
Nick: Yeah, I've gone out and basically tried meditation and learned how to do ritualistic magic, and then, maybe a year or so later, somebody has seen something very very similar to what I envisaged in that area. Now I'm not, certainly there's nothing special about me, a number of people have done this and in their own minds as well they've had some success in this area.
DB: Right.
NIck: One of the other areas that clinches it for me, at least, that there's more to bigfoot than meets the eye in Britain, is that, I think I've got three or four reports on file -- it's a very small number, but to me it's significant -- where people have been driving home late at night and they've seen this large hairy creature shamble across the road. And as it's done so, anything from like a hundred to a couple of hundred yards in front of them, their headlights, or car engine, or both of them, have failed. Almost like a vehicle interference case in some UFO reports.
DB: Yeah.
Nick: Now how we explain that, I haven't got a clue, I'll be the first to admit. But, again, I fully realize that some people think, you know, that's just too outrageous, the idea that a bigfoot, or a living creature, could affect the headlights of a car, and yet the people relating these accounts have, to my mind at least, no reason to lie. They come across as genuine as other people, and no axe to grind, you know, not looking for payments for the interview, concerned about not having too much publicity, in some cases quite happy for their first name to be revealed, but they don't want everybody and his brother knocking on their front door. So you have to wonder what is the motivation for coming up with a really wild story like that which in many respects defies convention and reality? So I would say it's these sorts of things, having grown up in Britain, and having been exposed to British bigfoot reports, has made me appreciate more the high strangeness angle, that Is so relevant because of Britain being such a small country. And, as I say, because of the locations where these things have been seen also.
DB: Right.
Nick: Now when it comes to the US, I'm fully aware that most US researchers of the subject do take the approach that we're dealing with a flesh and blood animal that is simply hiding out in huge forests and has successfully managed to keep away from society for however many years, for the most part. And that could well be the case. But I have to say, I have investigated, like I'm sure most researchers have, so called "fringe cases," in the US.
DB: Yes.
Nick: One classic one, which is also in the new book, was concerning a sighting of a bigfoot in the woods of Oklahoma, which I think was about two years ago. And the couple who said they saw this huge creature just sort of stride across the path way in front of them in the woods, which they described as an immense creature, like eight foot tall or something like that.
DB: Uh huh?
Nick: And they said, and I know this gets into some wild areas, that the creature, they felt, was talking to them through their minds, almost like a telepathy, saying, "Don't come any closer, stay away."
DB: Uh huh.
Nick: And the bizarre thing was, they described it as almost being a very gentle, womanly voice, coming from this creature, as I say in the book, that looks like it could tear apart a small car! And they afterward began to experience a lot of weird activity in their home, like poltergeist activity, seeing strange balls of light flitting in the woods outside of their home, things like that. Now, again, you either have to say, "Well these people are just cranks," you know, seeking publicity, etc. But actually, the ironic thing is they weren't seeking publicity, rather they were looking to get some sort of idea, from someone who could, hopefully, help them as to what they saw. So, you know, if they're not cranks, if they're not crazy, if they're not fantasists, again, I have to conclude that even if bigfoot is a physical creature, there are far stranger things going on with respect to these perceived paranormal aspects, poltergeist activity in the wake of an encounter.
DB: Right
And I think one of the things that parallels very closely some of the cases I investigated in America and practically all of them in Britain is this issue of the self-illuminating red eyes.
DB: Yeah.
Nick: Now, in England, I can tell you that I don't think.. there's probably no more than a handful of the three figure reports I've got that don't mention either self-luminating red eyes, or very very bright eyes, like silver eyes or white eyes, but that don't seem to be reflecting from any particular light source.
DB: Right
Nick: Of course, you know, you can see an animals eyes in the headlights of your car if you're driving late at night, but most of the people I've spoken with said that, no, it was far stranger than that. It was almost like these eyes were lighting up half the face. They were that bright.
DB: Hmm!
Nick: I've got a lot of reports like that, where there are these stand out red eyes. And we get that in a lot of other crypto reports as well. Even some of the black cat reports in England have these aspects, and particularly the ancient black dog legends in Britain. A lot of the British towns and villages have these ancient stories of phantom black dogs, kind of like The Hound of the Baskervilles, which itself was actually based on one of these legends. And in these cases, the black dog is sort of like a "Grim Reaper" type character. If you see it on a lonely road late at night, there's going to be tragedy in the family, or somebody is going to die, that sort of thing.
DB: Uh huh.
Nick: And they're kind of like an archetypal legend that is instilled in much of British folklore, but again, these black dogs are described as having these huge, illuminated eyes. In some cases bright red, or silver, or white. You know, you look at the Mothman as well, this winged creature with glowing eyes. So whether or not.. to what extent that's relevant, and even what it means, I'll be the first to admit I don't know. I'd be speculating, I just haven't got a clue. But collectively, it's these types of reports -- the locations, some of the after-effects -- that lead me to believe, as I said, even if bigfoot is physical, there's more going on.
DB: Yeah.
Nick: Now let me talk about the paranormal, of course that's very much a simplistic term. You know, it's a catch-all term for who-knows-what. And it's also the same with people who say, well, bigfoot can flit in and out of dimensions, etc. That sounds great, but my first question is, "How do you define what a dimension is?"
DB: Uh huh.
Nick: It's these simplistic that get bandied about so much within many aspects of the Fortean world. And I think things like quantum physics, possibly, are beginning to answer some of these questions about other realities and things like that. But I think it's in the very early stages and I hesitate to go down that path and fully embrace it, but equally I think it's not a responsible thing to ignore the high strangeness, fringe cases. Unfortunately I know some researchers who do. They just flat out think that, you know, the witness had to be mistaken at best, or at worst, they're trying to con me and hoax me.
DB: Right
Nick: I can understand that if you're of a mindset that -- particularly if someone has seen a creature close up and they're convinced it was a fully flesh and blood animate object. But equally I think the responsibility is on us to try not to get caught up in belief systems, and to analyze all of the evidence, even if it doesn't always sit well with what we tentatively conclude. So that's what I try and do, and I'll be the first to admit -- I don't mind admitting some people think, when I start going off on this paranormal tangent, you know, they think, "Nick's lost it" or, you know, "He's been smoking too much of the good stuff!" So in that respect I find it -- what shall I say.. I'm trying to follow the path of staying impartial..
DB: Right
Nick: But I won't lie and say I don't come across cases that suggest there's more going on, because I do. And I don't want to ignore those cases. I want to be able to try and have an open, wide approach to the subject that doesn't cause conflicts because I believe this or I believe that. Now in saying the fact that I do subscribe to the idea that at least some of these things are paranormal, as I said, one of the things I've tried to think of is, well, how can we take this to the next level?



28 comments:
Fantastic! Thank you for posting this. Looking forward to part 2 of course.
Among other things, I like the way Redfern isn't apologetic about any of this; he says what he thinks, and willingly shares it with the rest of us.
Anecdotal evidence is essentially useless, it proves nothing. It is silly to make conclusions based on anecdotes, regardless of how many there are.
The fact that people now report bigfoot sightings in places like Georgia (state) and Britain make it seem even more likely that all bigfoot sightings are untrue. The mystery, it seems, is why so many people report these dilusions?
And as a separate point, are there any prominent bigfoot researchers who don't sell merchandise like books, t-shirts, etc.? In other words, are there any researchers who aren't making a profit off this?
I'm sure not! (Making any money, that is.)
One thing I'd say is: If you don't like going on anecdotal evidence, you need go no further in bigfoot research until the body comes in (if it ever does).
For the rest of it, I've directly experienced very few of the things that Nick talks about, but I have experienced some things. But I have on the blog somewhere an interview from a policeman who had a very strange encounter (use the Infrasound search term). I find him very credible, and it's his experience (along with some others) that makes me want to really look at this side of things. I don't mind if it doesn't suit you -- everyone takes a different approach. My only thought is that we need to stop throwing out evidence because it doesn't fit our view of the world.
I remember when I first started bigfoot research, the self-luminous eyes nearly stopped me as soon as I learned about them. Since then I've done some research and have learned that there *are* physical ways for a suspension of salt water to emit light. Of course, until someone can actually study the eyes, it's just one loopy theory on top of another. But that's where we are, in terms of the opinion of mainstream science -- we're visiting the loopy fringe, whether you say bigfoot is just a flesh and blood descendant of Gigantopithecus, or whether you are willing to go further.
Some of the very strange things people report *might* be explained by the infrasound hypothesis, though there are problems with that. But how can we ever fine-tune that hypothesis if the features of reports that would reveal it are supressed?
Megapodia:
I would to a degree with you about anecdotal evidence; however, the Blogsquatcher is right.
Without a body, any and all evidence (regardless of whether it points in the direction of flesh and blood or the paranormal, and no matter how credible the witness it) is anecdotal and all we have to work with; it's the only thing that allows us to make a framework or theory.
Of course, if the body of a real Bigfoot is found, then I will be the very first to admit I screwed up in my beliefs and conclusions.
As for money and Bigfoot: I think (in fact, I know!) there are a lot of misconceptions about this.
For example, after living in the USA for 8 years, last year was the first year I was able to afford medical insurance and to finally get a car.
Before then, it was ride the bus and hope I don't get ill.
And my ability to finally afford medical insurance, had nothing to do with Bigfoot or Forteana!
One well known person in the world of Forteana came to visit me once and was amazed that i was living in a 20-foot by 20-foot rented room.
Like many others, he imagined that author = mansion and ferrari!
Most books (certainly mine) don't sell in massive quantities.
My book "Man-Monkey," published last year has sold around 300 copies -in total.
Given that the author gets around a dollar a book, that's not much! LOL.
Now, I want to stress that I'm not complaining because I freely chose the life I live; but - as someone who has written books - I do want to keep things in perspective!
I like your blog, and I admire that you don't sell t-shirts or have advertising. I admit, that if more people read my blog, I'd be tempted to have some Google ads or whatever.
But to the point of anecdotal evidence. The problem is that people lie, their memories change or fade, and their experiences and perceptions are influenced by their culture, religion, education, superstitions etc.
Ancedoctal evidence can be a good place to start, in terms of research, but there has to be more. If we ever want to find bigfoot, if it exists, we desparately need to tackle this in a scientific perspective. We need to identify habitat preferences, migration/dispersal corridors, document evidence of foraging behavior, make more effort at collecting scat and hair samples, invest more in camera traps, etc. This is all quantifiable, documented evidence that all researchers can agree on and have access to. Frankly, I get discourage that hardly anybody talks about this performing this kind of research.
Again, the problem with anectodal evidence is that, as the Georgia hoax demonstrates, a lot of people are just downright liers and even if they appear credible (he's a police officer) that doesn't make it so.
I should add that I'm not accusing anyone in particular of lying or being driven by profit.
Megapodia:
No, I didn't think for even one moment that you were implying that. But I know from experience that there are those people out there who think that if (a) you write books, then that money has to be the motivation; and (b) if you do make money, it has to be in large quantities.
For me, it's a desire to share info with like-minded people, to get data out there that might help us solve the puzzle(s).
If masses of money was my motivation (and to stress, you didn't say it was), after writing 11 books I would have given up long ago! LOL.
As long as I can hopefully give something back to the research field that might add something, that's good enough.
Quote: as the Georgia hoax demonstrates, a lot of people are just downright liers and even if they appear credible (he's a police officer) that doesn't make it so.
Good point...but...he also hit the launch pad for being a lier ;).
DB great interview thus far, looking forward to part two.
Nick you can expect to make a dollar off of me. I'll be picking up a copy of the book (thumbs up).
Mightyquinn:
Many thanks, and good to hear you enjoyed the interview!
Evidence, you say, Megapodia?
There is plenty of evidence.
Not all of it anecdotal.
What we don't have is conclusive evidence -- a body or bones.
There's more to it than oogy boogy campfire stories.
And there are people out there doing real work on the subject, not just banging keyboards.
Please investigate further! I was a complete skeptic myself until about five years ago. There's more to it than you might suspect.
cp,
I've done my fair share of research, and I've read many bigfoot books and looked at a lot of websites. I'd recommend you check out my blog to get an idea of where I'm coming from.
And please don't dismiss me as a "skeptic," just because I'm posing some tough questions!
If bigfoot exists, I want someone to find it. It would be a wonderful discover of immense value to science. As a biologist, I'm just advocating for more scientific rigor when it comes to bigfoot research.
You mentioned physical evidence - apart from footprints, there really isn't much to go on. One of the problems with footprints is that they can be faked. Some footprints seem to be authenic, however, and Dr. Meldrum is doing some solid research concerning those. However, other physical evidence is rare, such as hair and scat, or its controversial or inconclusive (like snow mounds). Dr. Meldrum is a shining beacon in terms of providing scientific authority to bigfoot research, however, beyond that I'm not aware of many others doing research that doesn't consist of answering a bigfoot hotline or spending a night in the woods with night vision goggles. I thought the BFRO might be doing some good field research, but then I learned that they take 20-40 people out into the woods for a weekend while charging $300 a person. That's no way to conduct a scientific investigation.
Again, I'm not hard-headed skeptic whose dismissing the possible existence of bigfoot, I'm just arguing that if we ever want to find the creature, we'll have to really focus on collecting quantifiable physical evidence. I think the goal should be for us to use credible eyewitness accounts, footprints, hair, scat, vocalizations, and evidence of foraging to identify perferred habitats and mirgration/dispersal corridors. From there we can really focus or efforts on collecting or photographing a bigfoot.
Dear Blogsquatcher,
The Georgia gorilla hoax had a good effect on my reading habits : I discovered your blog, and I started to read it instead of Cryptomundo. And I enjoy it a lot more. Thanks for having transcribed the interview of N. Redfern. This will result in another buck or two to him, since I'm willing to buy some of his books.
Keep doing your great job. I really appreciate it.
Megapodia, I think the kind of research you are yearning for really isn't being done very much at all. Even someone like Dr. Meldrum only has so much time and resources to devote to the quest. He does get out there some, and I'm sure you'd find most of what he does valuable. There are others who try to bring science or technology with them in a more rigid way than your average bigfoot researcher (but we shouldn't lump everyone into the same cookie-box here even when talking about the footsoldiers; I know my friend Tom Lancaster has used scientific methods to try to get at certain new angles of the bigfoot problem, and I know there are many more who do likewise).
The trouble is, to really do the kind of research that would please you, someone has to foot the bill. It would take months in the field to just scout out and grid your location, and then from there you need months of observation (or at least intermittent close observation) to collect your data. It's not something you can easily do in your spare time, even if your research area is relatively close.
The problem *I* have is, in an area where bigfoot creatures have been seen, and by credible (as well as non-credible, I'm afraid I have to admit) researchers too, we still can't find:
1. Evidence that creatures so large as these are have been feeding in the area.
2. The amount of physical sign you expect to see; ie, footprints, scat, bedding areas.
3. The number of sightings you'd really expect if they actually were present where they've been seen (though it's possible more people see them, and don't report it to anyone).
I'm not saying that these kinds of problems mean, well heck, they just *have* to be paranormal. I'm saying, let's figure out why we have these problems.
And when I use the word "paranormal" I don't think people really know where I'm coming from. I don't subscribe to the idea that there are magical creatures, as in, say a popular movie. I believe that what we call "paranormal" now is simply an aspect of our reality we haven't figured out yet. We probably need a new word.
Tomorrow I really am going to put up those videos to start getting some people familiar with how very strange we *already* know the world to be. The idea that we've solved all the mysteries in science doesn't ring true to me. I think we've got some more discoveries coming, and I'll bet when we know how some animals appear to be able to be there at one time, and not at another, it will not seem paranormal at all.
It might seem weird, but we're already living in that world, and have been since the advent of quantum mechanics.
dbd,
yeah, the lack of funding for such research is definitely an issue. I'm surprised groups like the BFRO don't use the profits from their $300 per person expeditions and t-shirt sales to fund some serious research.
It would be great if someone could organize the hundreds, if not thousands, of private bigfoot researchers. A coordinated, systematic, and sustained research effort of volunteers would be possible by the creation of a non-profit organization with just a few staff.
Additionally, it wouldn't take too much effort for someone to maintain a GIS database that contains locations of credible eyewtiness accounts, footprints, hair, and scat. This could be done by just one person, and would take only a few hours a week. Such a database would help identify any biogeographical patterns and help identify preferred habitat types.
I may have to depart from your way of thinking when you bring up the 'paranormal' stuff or quantum mechanics. Bigfoot, if it exists, is just like every other animal that has evolved on earth: it obeys the laws of physics, gravity, evolution, etc. Quantum physics is merely the study of electrons, atoms, etc., and I don't know how this plays relates to bigfoot. Bigfoot don't have any more control of these quantum forces than humans, or ducks, or snakes, etc.
Absolutely fascinating interview. The bigfoot world needs less dogmatists, hucksters, and shameless egomaniacs filled with certainty and more folks like Redfern and you dbd who are thoughtful and open minded. "If the witness is otherwise reliable, and especially when there is physical evidence too, let’s take it all in. I can almost guarantee that, down the line, the things that weird us out now will look different later on." Awesome statement and I could not agree more.
"Bigfoot, if it exists, is just like every other animal that has evolved on earth: it obeys the laws of physics, gravity, evolution, etc. "
In my opinion, for you to make a blanket statement like that is indicative of a closed mind. To say Bigfoot might exist, and if it does it HAS TO BE WHAT YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM says it must be and any reports suggesting otherwise cannot be taken seriously is just silly, not to mention the wrong thing to do.
anonymous,
I don't even know how to respond to that, but I'll try.
first off, a "belief system" is something like someone's religion, political opinions, values, morals, etc. What I've said is a summary of the LAWS OF NATURE. it is not an opinion! It's not that I choose to 'believe' in these laws, its that I have no choice. If you think that bigfoot operates out of the forces of nature, then that is YOUR belief system. It's the equivalent of believing in God because it is something supernatural that does not operate by the laws of nature.
If you want to ignore logic and the laws of nature then that is fine. But when you do that, everything becomes pure speculation. For example, you could say that bigfoot is actually God who appears to his chosen people. Or you could say that bigfoot is a ghost spirit of the forest. It can't be proven or disproven, so it doesn't really help us in finding bigfoot.
I'm astounished that I'm being attacked as a "skeptic" and "close minded" and am being told to "do my research." Is this how every person is treated to tries to offer some scientific advice?
"Anecdotal evidence is essentially useless, it proves nothing. It is silly to make conclusions based on anecdotes, regardless of how many there are."
I disagree. We're dealing with experience based beliefs in these reports. If a lot of people are claiming to have a similar experience the least one should do is look at and try to explain why so many people are having that experience. And one possibility is they really have experienced what they claim. Of course you can't say anecdotal evidence proves it. No one here has said that. But to say, these reports are "useless"- why do you say that? Because they don't fit your belief that if Bigfoot exists it must be such and such? That sort of thinking reeks of, "Don't bother me with the data, my mind's made up."
Grrrr.
To all of you 'anonymous' bloggers that are attacking me: OK, I admit it, I am "close minded" and I have "made my mind up" - I've made the decision to think rationally, apply logic, and think critically within the framework of the laws of nature like other misfits like Einstein, Oppenheimer, Schaeller, etc. I guess everything I learned in graduate school was wrong. All that time studying biology, ecology, chemistry, experimental design, mammalogy. I'm obviously just a close minded fool. I guess was wrong to pose critical questions or suggest that humans are capable of lying and hoaxing.
I guess I was also stupid to think that I could have an intelligent discussion here.
i'm fed up.
Enjoy the next 50 years of not finding bigfoot. your methods have really worked so far!
Megapodia, I would try not to get fed up if I were you. People are always going to disagree with you, even if you say what seems to be the most sensible thing. It's the nature of the internet, I'm afraid.
I'll tell you the truth, though -- it took me a long time to develop a thick skin. I used to get so worked up about things, but eventually I realized that there's another way to look at things. We're all on various journeys, and none of us are particularly at the same stage of these journeys either. I may disagree with someone because I think they can't see what I'm saying, and then a bit further down the road, I get a new perspective and I suddenly understand where they were coming from. (It goes the other way too -- sometimes you say something that just doesn't fit into the framework where someone else is at in their personal journey.)
I've been around just long enough to know, you can't tell where you are and where the other guy is, so I think, especially if you happen to be a blogger, it's best to face these things with as much equanimity as possible. For all you know, the effort you put into reflecting good scientific principles is rubbing off on people. That can't happen if you cash your chips in and go home.
"I've made the decision to think rationally, apply logic, and think critically within the framework of the laws of nature like other misfits like Einstein"
Well, I hope you don't also waste the last 30 years of your life working on a Unified Field Theory just because your belief system won't allow you to accept the weird things that Quantum Mechanics has proven.
Anyway, I hope you aren't really leaving. I've enjoyed your reading your posts on this thread, even if I disagree with them. And I agree with what you say about BFRO- though if someone like Nick was able to sell t-shirts I wouldn't hold it against him. The guy has to make a living and he is obviously far from rich. First year he has been able to buy a car? Not a starving artist I guess but certainly not Stephen King wealthy.....yet! :) Anyway, no hard feeling mega and I look forward to your eventual return.
PS mega- I have no idea if Bigfoot really exists but if it does exist I have no idea what it is. I'm open to the idea of it being a flesh and blood creature but I'm also open to it being something far stranger- as suggested by the cases Nick mentions in this interview. You seem to be saying, let's throw out all the weird stuff, because IF Bigfoot exists it has to be this. And I'm simply saying- let's look at everything. I guess because I've had some weird experiences (which most folks would probably say defy the "Laws of Nature") I'm open to the possibility that I don't know what it could be. I'm just open- but hopefully not so open that my brain falls out.
Why does he consider it ironic that he grew up near cannock chase? maybe he once wrote a paper about how he would never live near a place of strange significance.
wow, some of you got your heads in the clouds! how's the view from fantasty land - where gravity pulls you up and mytical fairies live in the woods.
I haven't heard about these "mytical faries". Can you tell us more? Are these the ancient Mozambican spirits of money? I think I would need to see a blurry photo or at least analyze a vial of fairy dust (with proper chain of custody controls) before I would give them much credit.
hmm, megapodia seems to have some solid advice on improving the search for bigfoot. too bad most people completely ingnored it and decided to go on the attack instead.
I have to admit, as I get older and read more and more on Bigfoot and other Cryptos, I begin to lean more and more heavily on the idea that there is a paranormal link, especially with Bigfoot. Extra-dimensional or other entity that is not native resident to this place, that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, when you say that around most "believers," they roll there eyes and tune you out. And if you say that to a "non-believer," or someone in the mainstream, you just shot all your credibility down the toilet.
I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'.
I've experienced poltergeist activity: in 1966, I suddenly looked up from my dinner, for no reason at all, and saw a grey ball about the size of a BB straight ahead. Imediately, it came at the right lens of my glasses with enough force to crack it, and ricocheted upwards. Try as we might, my family and I were never able to find it. I also heard the sound of breathing that was not my own on several occasions, nor of anyone that was around me when there was another person present; I once watched my father reading the newspaper while holding my breath, listening to this breathing; it wasn't his pattern, and neither he nor nearby people heard it.
In college, several of us in my fraternity were playing in a closed room with a Ouija board. We began to hear single taps that went from wall to wall to ceiling to different part of the first wall. Needless to say, we quit immediately. And despite fraternity houses being a hotbed of pranks (a few of which I was the target), no one but the people in the room knew what we were up to.
My brother saw the Hudson Valley UFO in the mid-80's. He ran to a neighbors house and got some number of corroborating witnesses.
All of these things events are "anecdotal". Yet they did happen. I have read so many times that eyewitness testimony is "useless". But, it seems, mostly only when it's inconvenient, such as the witnessess who heard shots and saw smoke rising from the Grassy Knoll, while a nearsighted man who wasn't wearing his glasses was accepted for identifying Oswald at the window. It's the people who start with the premise, "Such things cannot be," that tick me off, not that I'm saying you are, megapodia. But I prefer what Charles Pellegrino said, in his book The Ghosts of Vesuvius, that a scientist should say, "I don't know," when faced with a mystery.
Sorry about the length.
has anybody noticed that only a certain (ill) breed claim to have close encounters with ghosts, aliens, etc?
Post a Comment