Guest post: The big cryptids have to be in remote places
Originally a comment by Steven on Their own load of unclaimed baggage.
There’s an interesting/funny circular logic concerning cryptids.
When people talk about cryptids, they mean BIG cryptids. If I claim there is an unknown species of bacteria, or lichen, or insect, or even a small bat in some jungle somewhere, well, sure. There probably is.
But the cryptids that people get excited about are the big ones. Sasquatch. Yeti. Nessi. And the thing about big cryptids is that there just can’t be any of them in lower Manhattan. We’d see them, right? There can’t even be any in Nebraska. The farmers would run into them with their tractors and there would be video on YouTube.
The big cryptids have to be in remote places. The Himalayas. The depths of a Scottish Loch.
But when we say “remote”, we mean remote from us. Places where there are no people. And the reason there are no people in these places is that these places are really inhospitable to life. For a start, they tend to lack food sources.
So the logic of cryptids keeps forcing these animals to places where they can’t survive…which is probably why they don’t exist…
There’s been a massive God-of-the-gaps effect with cryptids every since the human race developed this habit of always carrying these ingenious little devices that do time-stamped photos and video.
Steven, how dare you say there can’t be cryptids in Nebraska when there have been reports of Bigfoot in Nebraska? Are you suggesting the people seeing these are lying? (Or drunk?) Would there be a Bigfoot museum in Nebraska if there were no Bigfeet in Nebraska? You are just being close minded!
Yeah, the claims of Bigfoot in Nebraska are even more batshit than the claims of Bigfoot in the Himalayas. But some Nebraskans claim to have seen them. I think if they were living there, they wouldn’t be secret. It tends to be rather open, without a lot of hiding places for big animals.
https://xkcd.com/1235/