Interview: Nick Redfern

[UM-Bot]

Unexplained Mysteries: This month Ghost Mysteries's Gigan caught up with Nick Redfern and forwarded along the questions that our forum members on both Ghost Mysteries and Unexplained Mysteries suggested we ask him for our interview - our thanks to Nick for answering these for us, to Gigan for organising it and to those who submitted their suggestions for the interview.

Q: What spawned your interest in monster hunting? Have you ever felt to be in danger doing what you do, physical or otherwise?

N: My interest in cryptozoology really began when I was about 4 or 5 years old and me and my parents went on holiday to Scotland. We spent a day at Loch Ness, and my dad told me these stories about how there was supposedly a monster in there. That got me interested even at that age, and I began reading books on the subject when I was probably 7 or 8 and really got into it all then.

No, I've never really considered myself in danger - whether it's walking around Loch Ness, or wandering through the Puerto Rican rain-forest. I take what I do as an adventure, not as something to fear or consider dangerous. I think it's important to go prepared, but don't fear the unknown.

I do, however, think that in some of the weirder cryptozoological cases (such as the Owlman in the UK), there is good evidence that digging too deeply into these things can result in a kind of "psychic backlash" that can result in all sorts of negativity and bad luck. So, in that respect, you have to be mentally careful how you tread.

Q. Do you believe it possible that any large cryptid animals remain undetected in today's world? If so, how or why have they remained undetected?

N: Yes, I think there are some: possibly Megalania may still exist in Australia - a large monitor lizard thought to have become extinct thousands of years ago. The giant sloth of South America just might still be around; and I don't discount at all a lot of sea-serpent reports. Why haven't we found them? Well, in terms of sea-serpents, I think it's simply due to the sheer size and depth of some of the world's oceans: it makes things very difficult. As for creatures that might still exist in South America: I

think that as the terrain is very tough in places (jungles, the heat, remote parts etc), it makes trying to launch a successful expedition very difficult at times. Plus, there may not actually be many of these creatures left - which makes our job even harder.

Q. Nick, do you see a correlation between the Owlman of Mawnan, Point Pleasant's Mothman and sacred sites? Do you think that they are the Tupla-like 'Cormons' which you have dealt with? If so, surely people who visit these sites, with the desire to know more about them would summon them?

N. I do see a connection. Personally, as far as cryptozoology is concerned, I see it primarily comprised of (a) genuine animals that science hasn't identified yet; ( animals that science believes have become extinct - but that still exist in remote pockets; and © the weirder, fringe-type creatures such as Owlman, Mothman, the British Bigfoot, etc.

I do see a connection with sacred sites too - in England, where I've uncovered a number of weird creature reports in the vicinity of ancient standing-stones, stone-circles etc. Linda Godfrey has found similar parallels in the US with her werewolf investigations.

I do think that at least some of these "things" are Tulpa/thought-form based. As to whether people who visit the sites would see them or not if they believe in them, I think it depends how much expectation (or not) they have of seeing them. Belief is one thing; but actually expecting to see one, is another. I do believe, from experience, that it is possible to invoke these things.

Of course, a lot of people think I'm as mad as a hatter, but I don't give a sh**. I know there is an element of cryptozoology that falls into this realm, and it's very real.

Q. I am interested to know, as a cryptozoologist, your views on the possibility of living Moa in the vast Fiordland countryside ?

N: Well, I'd say there's no doubt that reports have come in, so people are clearly seeing something. It would be incredible to think it still really does exist. I'd say, personally, more research should be done, purely because it is such a controversial area that many outright dismiss, and also because of the amazing implications if it was found to still be lurking around.

Q. I'd like to ask Nick, of all the monsters etc he has investigated which one does he think is most credible?

N. I think there are many credible monsters - but for different reasons. By that I mean, I think that invoking the paranormal types does result in the manifestation of certain archetypes - big hairy men, winged-things, etc. So, I see those as credible. Giant snakes in South America: the Center for Fortean Zoology recently launched an expedition to Guyana and got a lot of good reports. Sea Serpents: I'm personally convinced that there is good, credible witness testimony to such things. Bigfoot in Britain to me is credible - but only as a paranormal entity. It hardly makes me popular (but again, I don't care in the slightest); however, I think as credible as a lot of Sasquatch and Yeti reports are, these too will be seen to fall into the "paranormal" camp ultimately.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of why the '07 famed Milt expedition to the Congo was cancelled after the effort of a prelim mission in January '06?

N. No, I don’t, unfortunately.

Q. You study both the UFO phenomenon and the science of Cryptozoology, domains of knowledge in which you earned the reputation of a specialist. Reading studies as the ones provided by John Keel and Loren Coleman, I was often led to believe that the manifestations of both, as seen in the particular case of Point Pleasant, may indeed have the same common origin – whatever that may be. Would you agree with that?

N. Broadly, yes. I think Keel was (and still is) very close to finding the full truth with respect to the idea that the more paranormal and high-strangeness UFO and crypto cases might all be facets of a larger phenomenon that screws with the human mind - possibly to emotionally feed on us Tulpa-style.

Q. What is your take on how 'Body Snatchers in the Desert' has impacted on the Roswell ET/Military cover-up community and have you uncovered any new leads since the book was originally published ?

N. I think it has had little impact; primarily because it's not what the mainstream UFO community wants to hear. Roswell is the Holy Grail of Ufology, so anyone who comes along with non-alien theories for the incident is either ignored by the UFO community, accused of being a disinformation agent, or suspected of being duped by my sources.

That's the problem with Roswell: the stakes are so high, and it's a case that so many people want to believe was alien, that it becomes - in their eyes - untouchable. Kind of like the Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Not **** With Roswell.

Too bad. If I find information out that suggests we might all have been duped to hide something that in many ways is more sinister and shocking - diabolical human experimentation - I feel that it's necessary to bring it to people's attention.

Yes, there's a massive amount of new data that I am incorporate into a new book. I wrote a lengthy paper on the new data for the first issue of Stuart Miller's new "Alien Worlds" magazine back in the UK. That included new witnesses, info from researchers who had heard broadly the same story that I presented - - but long before my book was published; and even official files linking Japan's Unit 731 bio warfare research with the death of a young boy in Lincoln County, New Mexico in the late 1940s. Lincoln County, of course, is where rancher Mac Brazel found the wreckage.

Q. Do you believe that earthlights..aka willow wisps etc. could be intelligent and how much of a correlation do you see between these and UFOs ?

N. I think there is a possibility that some earth-lights appear to show evidence of some rudimentary intelligence - such as responding to the presence of people etc.

In literal terms, they are UFOs. But they may just be one of many mysterious things that collectively go towards the larger UFO puzzle.

Q. How credible are the testimony of all those military men that have come up to confess the govt.'s involvement with UFO's? What about the eyewitnesses? Do we believe their stories or could there be reasons to doubt them?

N. Those are some of the biggest problems that face us when we deal with whistleblowers: what's their motivation in coming forward? Are they following an agenda set down by others who are trying to deceive us? Or are they genuine? Really, all we can do is try and evaluate the data, dig deep into the backgrounds of the people and see how genuine they are, and - more importantly - try and get corroboration from others.

Q. What do you consider as reliable - sources and individuals. Is there a criteria, a feeling, credentials, historical accuracy or background checks? What is the best way to determine truth from enthusiasm or outright porkies?

N. I think reliability comes via all those methods. A lot of the methodology of determining truth vs. lies comes from the simple ways of just trying to verify if people are being honest about their backgrounds: did they hold the military ranks they claimed they held? Can we prove they worked (or didn't work) at the base they said they were stationed at. That sort of thing. If the red-flags start going up and their backgrounds don't check out, it's generally the case you're dealing with a liar, a disinformation person, or a nutter.

Q. What is your opinion on the tectonic strain theory ?

I think it's an interesting one, and in terms of earthlight spin-offs from tectonic strain issues, I think there is good circumstantial evidence suggesting the reality of the phenomenon.

*****************************************

Q. Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer our questions Nick, I am sure it has certainly given people something to chew on for a while! In closing, is there anything you would like to add?

N. You're welcome! As for closing words, I'd say: everyone interested in such things as those we've discussed should hold their heads up high. Don't be worried or embarrassed about discussing such things. A lot of people are, and that's a big shame. It doesn't matter what the nay-sayers, the skeptics and the debunkers say: **** them all. Keep on doing what you

are doing, as there is a real mystery at the heart of both cryptozoology and ufology, and we need good,

dedicated people who can find the answers. And have fun too while you're doing it!

[Bogeyman]

I'm dissapointed. My question about the sphere's wasn't asked even though if i remember rightly, it was the first question posted.....ah well

[Incorrigible1]

I really enjoyed the interview. Thanks to U-M and Nick Redfern for the collaboration. A note to Mr. Redfern: Dropping f-bombs doesn't enhance your credibility.

[crtDzyn]

I don't know, I always drop f-bombs to sound more credible. The only reason I do it actually.

Good interview. Although I'm not knowledgeable about most specifics that were discussed, I found it interesting. Very cool that UM and GM were able to offer this opportunity to submit questions. Perhaps we could get a chat event hosting a live interview with an individual such as Mr. Redfern. I can also see why that might not be practical however.

Edited May 21, 2008 by crtbud

[Guest Thought-Forms]

Thought-forms are a gnostic overlay of the visual cortex via advanced alien technological means - you see them but they don't physically exist, such as Bigfoot or the angels of The Holy Bible or Moses and Elijah in The Transfiguration of The Holy Bible.  Yes, you can conjure up a thought-forms out of your imagination that not only can you actually see but also so can other people.

[GlitterRose]

"a gnostic overlay of the visual cortex via advanced alien technological means"

Perhaps you might explain. Seems to me that aliens are just more thought-forms you can conjure up out of your imagination. 

"you see them but they don't physically exist"

 "Yes, you can conjure up a thought-forms out of your imagination that not only can you actually see but also so can other people."

Have to agree with the last two. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by ChaosRose