A British Bigfoot Update
Posted by: Nick Redfern on February 8th, 2013
Over the years, I have taken a great deal of interest in stories of Bigfoot-type creatures in Britain. It surprises a lot of people to know just how many accounts there are. Indeed, they number well into three-figures and stretch back at least nine centuries.
Such is the proliferation of such cases in the UK, I even wrote a 300-page book on the subject recently – titled Wildman: The Monstrous and Mysterious Saga of the British Bigfoot.
And here’s the latest (and controversial) addition to the puzzle: a story (and accompanying photo) from Kent, England…



this is a joke, right?
First we must sort through the Pub members and make sure to pick the story told by the individual who has consumed the least amount of Bass ale ;p But seriously, there is a lot of country in England so who knows? Also, thanks to Nick’s previous post on Bigfoot-UFO-paranormal varients, I think its not out of the realm that the locals are witnessing something paranormal…or just really good ale!! ;p
Surely you jest? These are not the footprints of a biped. Besides, they only have four toes. I can’t believe this even found it’s way here. The Tunbridge Wells publication should take a good hard look at itself in the mirror for publishing rubbish like this. Tabloid journalism at its worst.
John Kirk, you base your opinion that this is not a biped on the fact the print they show has 4 toes and not 5? Correct? What about an Ostrich print? What about a Kangaroo print? Do these have your correct amount of toes for a bipedal animal? What about a Chimpanzee footprint? Heck that looks like a man walking on his hands if you didn’t know better.
By bipedal I mean hominid as in the context of the article on a supposed Kentish Apeman. No hominid has tracks like that, in fact if were to put money on it, I would say that they look a lot like badger tracks.
It’s RUBBISH.