A cryptozoologist has an explanation for why no one has been able to catch elusive creatures like the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot: Because they're not of this earth. Nick Redfern believes the monsters are not part of the physical world, but instead fall in the paranormal realm. Redfern and two other researcher buddies took a six-week whirlwind tour of known sighting areas in England and questioned locals as well as tried to track down devil dogs, lake monsters and ape-men. What they found is that many of the so-called sightings took place near ancient stone circles -- similar to Stonehenge -- which leads Redfern to conclude that they are part of the paranormal and can not be captured by physical means.

He theorizes cryptozoologists may have to develop new methods of research, similar to the way ghost hunters use infrared photos to detect haunts. Redfern's exploration is detailed in his new book "Men Seeking Monsters" (Simon & Schuster).

View: Full Article | Source: ncbuy.com

So the ol' "monster under my bed" story can be true after all.

This article is an interesting explanation to these monsters, however, scientifically speaking its unconventional and not quite scientific at all. But then again, things change, science may soon include paranormal activities as a subject.

that reeks of Beckjord, just without the bad spelling, bad language, and complete lunacy:)

Bigfoot is most likely an unknown species, but I think nessie is just some kind of fatamorgana.

Nope can't find it but I 'm sure I've read this theory before , somewhere.

I firmly believe in the existence of bigfoot and nessie. The reason i believe in bigfoot is the fact that i have seen one. Believe me i was scared to death. It happen on a couple different occasions. It seem to be a real physical creature to me. So the gentlemen saying that it exists in a different physical realm than ours seems to me to be a bunch of bologny. Nessie lives in a lake that's been around since the end of the last ice age. The lake is extremely huge and deep that it's possible that nessie does exists and could live undetected for a long time. Also if anyone is interested i could go into more detail about my encounter's with bigfoot. Just let me know.

Has anyone heard of the crypto-creature that washed up on the shores of British Columbia? I'm not an expert in paleontology, but I can describe it, it is was pinkish in colour due to biological deterioration; it had four flippers a tail, and a long neck. Now what's the paleontological name of this animal I described? Well whatever it was, maybe a few you people might have more information about this.

He insulted my favourite Cryptid , ahhh but why cry when you can destroy

I would format my own argument, but instead I will quote directly from the experts over at BFRO.net:

Open quote
Is there any physical evidence at all?
The short answer: Yes, there is quite a bit of physical evidence. Tracks, hairs, scat, and tree damage are all "physical evidence." People tend to misuse this phrase when they really mean "physical remains."

Evidence vs. Remains

The assertion that there is absolutely no physical evidence is absolutely false. There is more physical evidence than most people realize. Physical evidence is found every month in various areas across the country. Distinct tracks that do not match other animal tracks, hairs that match each other but no known wild animals, and large scats that could not be made by any known species, are all "physical evidence."

The presence or absence of "physical remains" is a wholly different matter. "Physical remains" means body parts, or fossils of body parts. Though mammals may leave tracks, scats and hairs behind, they do not leave body parts behind very often. Body parts of mammals are only available when they die. Thus availability of physical remains is initially determined by population size and lifespan. A rare species with a long lifespan will leave very little physical remains, collectively, for humans to find. The probability of humans actually finding and collecting and identifying those remains before they are completely reabsorbed into the biomass complicates the "physical remains as evidence" equation dramatically.

Close quote

Why haven't we found the remains of a bigfoot that died of natural causes?
The short answer: Because "we" have never looked for these kinds of remains.

Nobody Looks for Bigfoot Remains

How come a hunter hasn't shot one?
The short answer: Because hunters don't hunt for these animals.


How come there's no bigfoot roadkill?
The short answer: Bigfoots are extremely rare and extremely cautious--so much so that the odds of a roadkill have not caught up with any yet.

Is there any physical evidence at all?
The short answer: Yes, there is quite a bit of physical evidence. Tracks, hairs, scat, and tree damage are all "physical evidence." People tend to misuse this phrase when they really mean "physical remains."

LINK

My argument isn't quute as good now its been cut to summaries

Can't say I didn't see it coming though

There's a link to the appropriate website for all who are interested.

(Which is really what you should have done instead of using a whole page to unnecessarily repeat something verbatim.)

There's a small expedition being held in California, but is most likely being kept at a minimum announcement. You wouldn't want hundreds of people flocking into the forests of California, trying to find it themselves. Meanwhile, causing "troops" of Bigfoots to run away. When this happens, the pursuit for Bigfoot becomes chaotic and rules out the possibility of using stealth in the event of capturing a Bigfoot or encountering one.

I'm not exactly sure when they'll start this hunt, but I'm sure its starting in spring or since its a warmer climate in California than it is up here in Manitoba, it may start earlier. There's an article in here about this, I'm sure of it. Here it is:

Big Plans to Catch Bigfoot | Source: Unexplained-Mysteries
=====
Big Plans to Catch Bigfoot
"It’s a master plan that includes global positioning, aerial surveillance and ground patrol. The unlikely mission is to smoke out an elusive beast whose mythology traces back to the nation’s beginnings — Sasquatch."

"Barrows said there will be night goggles, humvees and even helicopters. Costs to take part in the expedition, which will take place in a yet-to-be-announced Northern California location, have not been determined.

When exactly will the big hunt start?

“As soon as weather breaks,” said Barrows."

I missed that post, loos like my last arguement will be irrelevant if its goes ahead. Part of me hopes they find Bigfoot so nobody thinks I'm crazy anymore and I can laugh at them, but I'm worried that finiding Bigfoot will take the facinastion out of it, it'll just be another ape rather than something which you scare ach other over the campfire with... no more Bigfoot horror movies . Then again if they don't find it they'll claim, this proves theirs no Bigfoot again like they did when the Paterson family told that rubbish about the film being fake.

How do they even try to catch these creatures? Why don't they just shoot them. I'm sure at least they will get bigfoot.