Crypto critters aren’t really my area of interest, but early on in my research of nature folk legends and lores, I found that there is some times a blurry line between a crypto critter and what ‘would have’ at one time been labeled as a fae-folk or a nature folk.
I do confess that I laugh at how more than a few crypto enthusiast (and a few of the paranormal enthusiast) will walk-all-over-themselves, when describing a ‘being’, to avoid calling it a nature folk or fae or anything that’s associated with the old definitions.
In my opinion, It’s probably embarrassing for modern preternatural researchers to ‘find something’ that’s ‘already been found’ that has already been named a fae, nature folk or spirit…
So they give ‘their find’ new names and try to fake us off into thinking that they are more knowledgeable in their perspective on mystery beasties and phantoms than all the generations before…
Here’s an article of what I mean: A New York Monster by Nick Redfern: It’s an interesting story of a chance encounter of a man, called Barry, who saw a strange little hairy manlike creature on a trail in Central Park in 1997.
In the article, Barry reported that he saw an ‘unknown animal’,
Monster-hunter Nick Redfern called it a ‘weird creature’,’strange beast’, ‘man-like beast’, man-beast’, ’strange creature’ and a ‘Little Foot’
Perhaps, Barry should have reported the sighting to the authorities, because in reality, sadly the strange creature may have been an exceptionally hairy little person who was born with dwarfism and who felt ostracized by society. He probably chose Central Park as an area to hang out and hide in where there’s access to food by way of picnickers and the like. The little fellow may have needed help.
Of course, it’s also possible the strange creature was some sort of ape, perhaps an Orang Pendek – that someone had smuggled into New York and then it either got away from them or they let it go. The orang pendek is considered a cryptid because there’s only been sightings, blurry pictures and footprints, but no absolute proof… well apparently there was something about a hair sample, but as I understand it, because of lack of funds there is a delay in getting it tested.
I wonder why Mr. Redfern immediately thought of ‘little foot’ and addressed only the cryptid aspect of the account instead of discussing other more viable possibilities.
and one more thing… why do you suppose as a respected researcher in the cryptid field that Mr. Redfern didn’t mention if Barry answered any of the following questions: What color was it’s eyes, Did it have hair all over his face? Was it’s facial features, human, ape-like or cro-magnon? Did it have ears like a human or an animal? Did it wear any type of clothing like shorts?
None-the-less, I think it’s a curious article…
Personally, In my opinion, if I had of been questioning Barry and feeling sure that it probably wasn’t a little human or a known animal, I would have been more apt to have call it a fae-folk or nature-folk… And since Barry didn’t express any apparent magical qualities about it, I’d of probably settled on calling it a ‘nature folk’. Maybe that’s what ‘Big & Little Foot’ are and the monster-hunters just don’t want to admit the strange hominid creatures may actually be what once-upon-a-time was called a nature folk or a fae-folk.
I think it’d be a hoot if it was a rose by any other name scenario… 😉