Nick Redfern Responds Burn Nick Burn

Nick Redfern Responds Burn Nick Burn
Recently Nick Redfern shared his thoughts about paranormal Bigfoot; specifically, about a case from 1985 involving a Ouija board and the subsequent apparition of a Bigfoot like creature in his article A Paranormal Bigfoot. In Bigfoot Fundamentalists: Burn Nick Burn! Redfern writes on the Mania.com site about the comments he received about that article. Redfern received more e-mails than usual in response to that article, some o which bordered, as he writes, on the psychotic:

But what angers me more than anything else, are those who champion the "Bigfoot is just a giant ape" scenario with a definitively rabid (and, at time, vaguely threatening) zeal of a type that would make any, and all, religious fundamentalists (whether from the Deep South or the Middle East) glowingly proud.

But, what interests me most of all is the rabid (and, indeed, almost psychotic) approach that such commentators occasionally display in their e-mails.

It's not that one may disagree about the nature of Bigfoot; debate is a given, disagreement on what BF is, or is not, is to be expected. But it's the shrill, over the top, fanatical and downright hateful reaction to the idea that some consider Bigfoot a paranormal creature.

As Nick asks:


So what if I proclaim that Bigfoot may be paranormal? So what if I don't accept the notion that Bigfoot is just an ape of unknown origins and/or type?

Should that result in vitriolic e-mails to me from a variety of Bigfoot researchers displaying a self-righteous zeal that any stance beyond that of "Bigfoot is an ape," is somehow dangerous and wrong?

The same can be said of many UFO researchers who have similar reactions when it comes to different theories. And these often nasty responses come from within; we expect them from the uber-skeptic fundie-debunker faux-skeptic crowd, but from fellow explorers of the Fortean realms?

I'll end with what Nick says about BF being paranormal, or, not:

And here's the thing I find most baffling of all: why should it even matter if Bigfoot is flesh-and-blood or paranormal? The answer is: it shouldn't. Only the facts and a determination to get to the truth - whatever that may be - should ultimately matter. But, it does apparently matter - to some, at least.

Exactly. IF the truth is the goal, then we go where the data takes us. And a lot of that data, like it or not, includes encounters that clearly go beyond the "flesh and blood big ape" idea.

Posted by Unknown | at 7:45 AM