To put it in a different context, when a ghost hunter finds an image on his camera, it would be wise to consider all the various and, let’s face it, more probable explanations (Like reflections, odd but conventional light sources, real people, or photographic artifacts, etc.) before they wave their hands in the air and declare it to be their long-dead uncle Fred.

I have spoken here on Cryptomundo many times about the possibility of some cryptid reports being examples of Tulpoids and archetypes of the collective unconscious, which at times can seem to be the only way to account for all the reports we have, so please don’t think I’m criticizing the ideas themselves. There are days when I’m in the Goblin Universe camp where most anything goes, and others when I have my biological blinders on, discounting the more bizarre angles. Like most of us here, I think, on all the rest of the days of the year, I wander about somewhere in between the two, hoping to bump into something unexpected.

Here’s my take on it all- If a gigantic, unknown species of Eel were discovered in Loch Ness that could account for even some of the sightings, scientists are going to declare it the Loch Ness Monster, name it accordingly, and consider the matter settled. Some cryptozoologists will agree, others won’t, for precisely the same reasons as someone has already mentioned in this thread. For those who consider it to still be a cryptid, new terms will have to be created to differentiate “their” monster from “the” monster.

Similarly, if Bigfoot is finally recognized by science, which “Bigfoot” will it be (True Giant, Marked Hominid, Skunk Ape, etc.), and what will we call the others if they continue to be reported? You know that if anything even remotely similar to a Bigfoot is discovered and publically acknowledged, that’s what it will be called, unless the discoverer opts for the Yeti or Abominable Snowman moniker, or perhaps is Australian. Lord help us if they call it a Yarwen or something! Whatever they call it, likely it will stick.

Language is like water, it flows into whatever empty spaces gravity allows it to. Like water, any word can be reshaped to fit whatever pigeon hole it’s poured into. Before the CZ community will have had time to deliberate on what was discovered, popular culture will already have named it, copyrighted it, and slapped it on a T-shirt. Anyone remember the Maine Mutant or the Yardley Yeti?

What my suspicion is, is the reason why the likes of Bigfoot continue to prove so elusive, and continue to be associated by many people inside and outside the cryptozoo fold with the likes of UFOs, ghosts, and the Supernatural in general is because not only do these creatures have unnatural intelligence for ‘mere’ animals but they utilize physical laws which we are only just dimly beginning to suspect the existence of. Take the Dolphin, it whizzes through water at terrific speeds, leaps in the air to amazing heights, and yet it only has something like one-sixth of the muscle mass it needs to achieve these feats, something which has still to be explained; nor am I suggesting that this means, then, dolphins are really magical space pixies from planet Cornflake 9. What it might mean though is that critters like the Dolphin and, yes, Bigfoot, may be able to exploit in some way the glitches and anomalies the likes of Quantum Theory (and practise) are increasingly detecting and pointing to in the so-called ‘Laws’ associated with Newtonian Physics, and that is why they are so hard to entrap, either in person or on film; that is why many believers tar them with the Supernatural brush; and, maybe, just maybe, that is one of the reasons why many people spend a great deal of time trying to discredit people like yourself, or poo-poohing a subject concerned with creatures which they profess to have absolutely no belief in - because those creatures, unlike the fabled banjoplucker and the legendary wumbleblatt, scare the living crap out of them!

Re: Thunderbirds - I think the Washington Eagle existed and likely does exist too. But it is very different from a lot of Thunderbird sightings. Especially the beak - Thunderbirds are alleged to have longer beaks like a raven or vulture rather than a beak like an eagle. They’re also frequently described as having a white ring around their neck and white markings on the wings, which don’t fit the paintings and descriptions of the Washington Eagle. Not to pick nits, but I think at least two distinct species are being described.