Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend (An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend)

Rating:
Summary: Doesn't deliver what title suggests
Review: No need to pay much attention to this book. There are parts of it that are worth reading, but mostly peripheral to the main issue. The book cover appears to promise skilled dissection by a qualified scientist that disposes of all evidence that sasquatch are real animals, but in that regard the book contains nothing at all.
Leaving out "could be" material like old newspaper stories, Indian traditions, unidentified sounds, smells and hair, mysteriously thrown rocks, and so on, there are three lines of evidence that Dr. Daegling has to explain away: hundreds of casts and photos of footprints; thousands of eye-witness accounts, and one remarkable movie.
As to the footprints, Dr. Daegling has read about them, but there is no indication that he has studied them. Since he is sure that there can be no such animal and that the footprints can easily be faked, he has seen no need to, even when he planned to write about them in a book. What has been reported by the people who actually have investigated such footprints has to be mistaken, because if it were correct tall tale tellers likes Ray Wallace and Rant Mullens could not have made them, and they have "revealed" that they did.
Eye witnesses? Dr.Daegling goes on at length about the fallibility of human memory. A lot of truth in that, but if its memories were as completely useless as he suggests the human species could never have survived, let alone written books. He has read witnesses' stories, but since there is no such animal and memories are so fallible he has seen no need to talk to any, even when he planned to write a book dismissing all of them as dupes and liars and hallucinators.
Paradoxically, one witness who happened to be a friend of his does seem to have made quite an impression on him, even though hers was a partial on-a-dark-road sighting. He stresses that this lone interview happened to him "not by design," and considering his reaction it seems likely that avoiding talking to people with clear and detailed sightings to describe was absolutely necessary for him to be able to write his book.
It is different regarding the Patterson movie. He has indeed spent time and sought assistance in studying that. Not to prove that it is a hoax, which isn't necessary since there is no such animal, just to try to disprove evidence that what it shows can't be a man in a suit.
Throughout the book there are enough factual errors and ill-founded assumptions to thoroughly mislead anyone who has no other source of information on this subject, but they are too numerous to deal with here.

John Green






Rating:
Summary: Long overdue
Review: I agree with Rick Noll's assessment that this is the best skeptical book written concerning whether or not another upright primate exists in the world. Daegling, for the most part, does an admirable job of taking famous pieces of Bigfoot evidence and providing possible alternative explanations for them. However, his basic claim that there's no incontrovertible evidence to show that such a creature exists, is one that many within the field of Bigfoot research already share.

It's clear, at least from the book, that he feels that any continued serious field research is not scientifically warranted. This is, also obviously, where he differs with most believers.

For me, one of the most intriguing claims in the book is
that, in regards to possible Bigfoot hair samples, Daegling states "...there was a time in the past when investigators did not have the tools to make a diagnosis of "unknown species" that was credible. That time is past. When Fahrenbach (Bigfoot researcher) says that a useful length of DNA for determining the phylogenic status of a sample has been difficult to come by, we can fairly demand to know what went wrong". Would be interesting to hear any rebuttals to this claim.

I would have liked to have read his thoughts on Jane Goodall's belief that Sasquatches are most probably real as well as some ruminations concerning the vastness of the Pacific Northwest forests which, some would say, could very well hide a relatively small, spread-out population of mountain gorilla-like creatures...yes, even though no bone or body part evidence has so far come forth. Also, it would have been nice for him to discuss the moments in the history of science where longtold stories of supposedly mythical creatures were eventually backed up by actual discoveries (Panda, mountain gorilla, etc.)

His theory that the whole of Bigfoot evidence (eyewitness testimony, footprints, unusual screams, etc.) can be explained, in lieu of hard physical evidence, by misperception and hoaxing (fueled, at least partly, by Bigfoot representing an archetypal guardian of the forest) is correct. It CAN be explained that way. It just doesn't mean that it's necessarily the one and only explanation.

Overall, a must buy for anyone serious about the phenomenon.


Rating:
Summary: Armchair Anthropologist
Review: Daegling is obviously a very well informed scientist with impressive credentials, but it's unfortunate that he relies so much on other people's reports/data. I took a few anthropology classes at NYU, and the first thing they teach you is to collect your own evidence, and then weigh it against everything else that has been collected. That's the mark of a truly admirable scientific hypothesis that pertains to living beings (or the absense thereof).

I just completed a novel about sasquatch and part of the research process naturally included a few long sojourns into the "bush." My efforts were surprisingly rewarding. I went up into the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and on my first visit to an isolated swampy region, I encountered tree knocking, branch breaking, strange calls that were not coyote, bear, elk or deer, and even a large stinking thing that came, stood by my tent, and grumbled to itself, scaring the holy crap out of me.

If Daegling had taken the trouble to log onto bfro.net or oregonbigfoot.com, he would have found several "hot spots" to get out and stretch his legs. And if he'd had the guts, he might have gone out alone to backpack, a practice which greatly increases one's chances for some kind of encounter, particularly if one travels to a few desolate spots where encounters have run high in the recent past.

Bigfoot Exposed utilizes a lot of bells and whistles, at least in scientific terms. I guess you might call it the human equivalent of a pigeon fluffing up its feathers, or a silverback gorilla mock-charging to establish his dominance. But it's all hot air, as far as I'm concerned, because it does not rely nearly enough on first-hand field work. If Daegling had been around in the early 1900's, he might have sat in his plush university office and written a similar tract on the fallacy of the mountain gorilla.

True blue anthropologists like Diane Fossey (sp?) and Jane Goodall actually get off their butts and have a look for themselves. It's a practice I whole-heartedly recommend for anyone who is serious about debunking the sasquatch legend. As for myself, I'm still a skeptic; however, after experiencing so much converging unexplainable phenomenon in a handful of trips into the wild bush, I can't dismiss the whole thing out of hand. I used to be a more brazen skeptic. In fact, my novel was somewhat tongue in cheek. My gut feeling now is that there is definitely something to it.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on a small but nonetheless real population of forest giants, not the bibliographically constipated musings of an armchair anthropologist.

Take a look at the latest issue of Scientific American if you need proof that non-homo-sapien humans can exist alongside us. In this case, the creatures were child-sized. And if that's possible, then why not two or three feet in the other direction?

Rating:
Summary: Best Book on Bigfoot I've Ever Read
Review: I am a former believer in bigfoot who has over the years migrated into the skeptical camp, and I have to say this is the best book I've read on the subject to date. Not only does Daegling write well, but he pulls together an impressive collection of arguments that help explain what really lies behind the enduring mystery of bigfoot.

What's great about the book is that Daegling is honest enough to confront the challenges that face both skeptics and believers. He notes, for example, that the famous Patterson-Gimlin film cannot simply be explained away as a man in a cheap monkey suit. If it's a hoax, and Daegling shows that it could be by demonstrating that a human can duplicate the creature's gait, it's a more sophisticated hoax than a store-bought gorilla costume.

Daegling is also unfailingly polite to bigfoot advocates. Nothing about this book is sarcastic or rude. He does not poke fun at those who believe and respects the advocates who have put years into this matter. John Green, who trashed the book in a review elsewhere on this site, is treated with respect and the deference due to him for his long years of service in the bigfoot camp. (It's too bad Green didn't have the class to return the favor!) One gets the impression that Daegling grew genuinely fond of people like Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne and others and admires their tenacity.

Still, Daegling does not hesitate to point out examples of sloppy science and wishful thinking by bigfoot boosters when it is appropriate. His dissection of the footprint evidence championed by Grover Krantz is illuminating and underscores how Krantz's arrogance led him astray. (Although Daegling is not so crass as to call Krantz arrogant -- that's my word.) Needless to say, when any scientist adopts the attitude of "I cannot be fooled," he's headed for a fall.

Daegling wraps things up with a thought-provoking chapter on the limits of human memory and the fallibility of eyewitness accounts and a chapter on why we need bigfoot. He put into words ideas that I have struggled to articulate over the years, and he does it masterfully.

In a way, this book made me sad. A tiny bit of me continued to hold out hope that bigfoot would turn out to be real after all. The world would be a much cooler, more interesting place, with bigfoot in it. That piece of me has not entirely vanished yet -- a boy can still dream, after all -- but it did get even smaller once I finished.

If you have any interest at all in this topic, read this book. In fact, I suggest that you read it back to back with Chris Murphy's "Meet the Sasquatch." Get a good dose of both sides. Both books are well written, but at the end of the day, I think Daegling comes out on top.

Rating:
Summary: Best skeptical bigfoot book out there...
Review: I am very glad I purchased this book and I think you will be too. There are not too many skeptical view points out there that come across as intelligent, well written and up to date with their facts. Bigfoot Exposed should be included on the shelves with other classic volumes of the phenomena like that of John Green and Grover Krantz. It finally puts into print and in one place the hard issues that skeptics have had with the subject. Daegling dissects the Bigfoot enigma into its component parts, stating that they in fact don't necessarily belong together; it's time to take a different view of things.

For this anthropologist, tracks and casts should not be used to corroborate eyewitness reports of them being made. Film, hair, sounds and scat should be separate as well. Even, what the skeptics call, the "advocates" star event, the Patterson/Gimlin film, should be separated from the tracks attributed to it and the eyewitness testimony from both Roger and Bob. Each component can then be analyzed on its own.

He quotes mostly from actual Bigfoot researchers, versus the skeptical camp, usually using their own words and thoughts to make his counterpoints. I much prefer this method to get both talking the same thing. Too many times have we seen people arguing a point only to later find out they were talking about different things. Sure, someone who is very familiar with the subject doesn't have too much of a problem understanding where each is coming from but others less familiar don't understand the finer details each use in their arguments.

This is not as dry a read as Big Footprints by Grover Krantz but it isn't as technical either. Unfortunately, I am of the advocate camp and this book attempts to show that there just isn't any good evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot, in fact most of the evidence, in the authors mind, points toward misidentification and hoaxing. After reading the entire book and admiring the work for what it is (an honest attempt to explain the other side of the coin), I can't help but think that there is truth in the saying that seldom do the parts equal the whole. Explaining the mystery through a combination of human fabrication and common enough spoor of known animals and other inanimate objects seems quite convoluted as presented in this book. Taking a piece here and there from various events, showing some inconsistencies and then trying to recombine those, makes for a pretty fantastic piece of theory, but in this scientist's opinion, not as fantastic as an 8 foot tall, bipedal ape living in North America.

Counter-arguments to his work are going to have to address some interesting items. The author is claiming that most of the evidence is easily attributable to hoaxing of some type; he even identifies the possible people involved. But I don't think he knows that advocates of the creature's existence have tried to get more quantitative information from these individuals. I personally have contacted the Wallace family so as to come to their home and document all the evidence of their father's fake track making so we could take out stuff he may have fabricated, only to be turned away because of a movie deal. Others have asked for data surrounding Bob Herionomus such as stride length, pictures of him inside a costume and arm/leg lengths... alas, another movie or TV deal going on there as well. It seems that the admitted hoaxers only want to associate themselves and cherished work with the skeptical side. I guess it would seem that they would believe them more then people who go looking for the giant hairy monster.

I will have to take exception though, I guess because I was involved with it from the start, with him using some one identified as being dubious, possibly fabricating pictures, tracks and casts, but then using this same person to substantiate claims of misidentification with the Skookum cast and actual hoaxing with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Sometimes the tone in the book is very harsh on the researchers versus the one's who he claims have been perpetrating this hoax. He does this with Wallace, Ray Picken and Rant Mullen... all people who have claimed (in one way or another) that they have faked tracks with carved wooden feet and fooled a lot of people since 1958. To be fair though, he didn't do this with Paul Freeman.

Bigfoot researchers need to have access to these admitted hoaxers and the skeptics need to have access to the best evidence available. From reading the book, I can pretty much tell that the author has only been able to view the P/G film on video (which skips frames in the process of converting the film to video, odd/even) and the 12 non-contiguous publicized cibachrome prints made by Bruce Bonney from the film. He really should have made an effort to see evidence first hand instead of watching TV programs or talking with like minded people (Dennet, Perez, Radford for example).

One last thing, 5% of the German airforce has the same chest size as the creature portrayed in the film? My understanding is that the measurements found in the Anthropometry Sourcebook are taken from the center of the arm pit to the center of the arm pit, using a tape measure. This is the interscye dimension, a measurement along the contour of the body. The author takes great pains to show the readers that not much in the form of measurements can be ascertained with the P/G film so why would he use this type of measurement when anything measured off the two dimensional images would be of a flat pattern type? That is exactly what Grover Krantz measured though, the two dimensional aspect of the creature in the film.

I also wonder how the RAF during WWII was able to determine subject size with aerial photography only knowing three things? Distance to the subject, focal length of the lens and the subject height as measured on the film. Seemed to work then.


Rating:
Summary: Interesting book, but Daegling misses the point
Review: This book, while a great improvement over Greg Long's "The Making of Bigfoot", is still a damning expose' of Bigfoot research full of suppositions and speculations, but very little facts. Daegling certainly had good intentions in mind to try to debunk Bigfoot as a phenomenon, but he spent too much time in suppositions and speculations and not enough time stating facts. For instance, he misrepresents the late Grover Krantz by saying that he did not endorse the "Skookum Cast," a 2/3 body impression of what may be a Bigfoot, when I saw an interview with Krantz in which he said it looked to him like a Sasquatch was thrashing around on the ground. Daegling also buys into the whole Ray Wallace nonsense hook, line and sinker, as well as praising known hoaxers like Ray Pickens, Rant Mullens and Paul Freeman. He seems to imply that Bigfoot researchers are wasting their time looking for something that may not exist (in his mind) and the book loses its objectivity there. He gives what are seemingly plausible solutions to things like tracks, the Patterson/Gimlin film, hair samples and [...] matter, but his bias comes through in reporting these things, which is unfortunate. He seems to imply that Krantz and Dr. Jeff Meldrum (his old college roommate) were gullible enough to buy into the Bossburg "Cripple-Foot" tracks, and also some of the tracks found by Freeman which may or may not contain genuine dermal ridges. In short, Daegling's book fails to really make the case for the skeptics that Bigfoot is not real. Still, I would recommend this book over Long's, even if with reservations.