Bigfoot and Nessie: A Paranormal Problem

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.

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:)

Because they're not of this earth.

Absolute drivel

Bigfoot is a notrual species of ape which aviods humans and lives in areas they don't go, furthermore no proper expedition has ever been made of the creature just guys going out camping for a few days

Nessie meanwhile is most likely a migrating species of unknown animal which moves around and only occassional goes up the canals to reach loch Ness... I refuse to say its a sturgeon!

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

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

I agree with you on that one. I wonder if one of the two other researchers was Beckjord? Plus I don't see how stone circles can account for all the US bigfoot sightings since we like have no circles here....

that reeks of Beckjord

Is that the loony you used to post here, or was that someone else?

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

Why Sera are you not using your analytical eyes to read it ? Just joking hun , I can't resist an analytical joke at the expence of our old friend Eric

However it's not the first time I've heard this theory and I hate to say it, but I think we have another story similar to this one a wee way back on the News threads .

B.A. one day I'll get you that $5 I owe you

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.

Edited February 21, 2004 by Blue-Scorpion

Also if anyone is interested i could go into more detail about my encounter's with bigfoot. Just let me know.

Just letting you know taht's really one of the main reasons for the forum isn't it ?

Edited February 21, 2004 by Kismit

Because they're not of this earth.

Absolute drivel

Bigfoot is a notrual species of ape which aviods humans and lives in areas they don't go, furthermore no proper expedition has ever been made of the creature just guys going out camping for a few days

Nessie meanwhile is most likely a migrating species of unknown animal which moves around and only occassional goes up the canals to reach loch Ness... I refuse to say its a sturgeon!

Think of it this way, We can find almost anything on the earth if we wanted to. With radars and stuff. We have the technoligy to find humans 20ft below the surface. Then how come nothing would be able to detect them? and bigfoot would of died off by now. Maybe of age. And people have only seen them alone? how come there not with another bigfoot? or what do they eat? you dont see dead rabbits or other odd things on the ground. And why dont they get some DNA from a foot track?

Then how come nothing would be able to detect them? or what do they eat?

I'm sure they'll be able to detect, but it entirely depends on where and when Bigfoot is when detection or forest scans are occuring.

And people have only seen them alone? how come there not with another bigfoot?

Actually there are encounters of groups of Bigfoots. One encounter that I've read somewhere, maybe an article in this site, involved a siting of what seemed to be a group or, monkey-wise, a troop of Bigfoots. [what's a group of Bigfoot? Bigfeet?]

or what do they eat?

There was a show on TV, can't remember the title, but it demonstrated a test where fruits were laid in the middle of moat. The animal would have to actually walk into the water, or for birds, they would have to fly on top of the fruits. A huge indentation of an animal lying down on its side which seemingly implies that it was reaching for the fruits, [possibly bigfoot]. These were scientists who were doing ([creating]) these tests, mind you.

you dont see dead rabbits or other odd things on the ground.

Since bigfoot is a mystery, its feeding habits would also be a mystery. But i'm sure its safe to say that bigfoot would mostly be herbivorous. Since, there have not been any discoveries of that odd dead animal, to my knowledge.

And why dont they get some DNA from a foot track?

If you leave a footprint on sand or damp soil, there's a slim chance for you to leave, a sizeable amount of cells, whether it be from hair or skin tissue, lying on the footprint, that is enough to decipher its DNA. A few cells left by Bigfoot on a foot track would be like finding a needle in a haystack. And in this case, a metal detector would not work. Also remember there are other bacterial organisms on the soils that a bigfoot steps on. So, scientists would have to take an extended amount of time to determine what cells are from who.

Edited February 21, 2004 by Blue-Scorpion

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

Edited February 21, 2004 by Aslan

We have the technoligy to find humans 20ft below the surface. Then how come nothing would be able to detect them?

In answer to this, yes we do have spy satillites and infra-red helicopter cameras etc which could if they wanted to find Bigfoot.... but when was the last time we used them for that purpose?

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

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

Edited February 22, 2004 by Talon S.

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.)

Edited February 22, 2004 by Aslan

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

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

Yes, I kinda got that

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.