Book Review by Daniel Perez

Book Review by Daniel Perez, 10926 Milano Avenue, Norwalk, California 90650-1638. Telephone: (951) 509-2951. E-mail: perez952@sbcglobal.net January 2005.

Daegling, Dr. David John. Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America’s Enduring Legend. Alta Mira Press (A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), 1630 North Main Street, #367, Walnut Creek, California 94596. 276 pages, December 2004 publication, $24.95 paperback; $72.00 clothbound. ISBN: 0-7591-0539-1. Black and white pictures, illustrations, extensive footnotes, bibliography, index. Telephone: (800) 462-6420. www.altamirapress.com.

In 1980 Dr. Kenneth C. Wylie authored a very useful work, Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry Into A Phenomenon in which he reviewed and questioned much of the so-called Bigfoot evidence in existence up to that time. Armed with a Ph.D in African studies, his role in the book was that of a skeptic. Noted Dr. Wylie in the book, “The continued failure to find physical evidence is far more compelling than the so-called evidence supporting the idea that the creature exists.”

More recently, however, Greg Long penned The Making Of Bigfoot: The Inside Story, a book about the late Roger Patterson and his famous 1967 film of Bigfoot. Throughout the book, Long was able to effectively assassinate the character of Patterson but fell hopelessly short in trying to demolish the subject portrayed in the Bluff Creek movie. Bob Heironimus is pegged as the so-called man-in-the-costume behind the movie; yet there is no evidence to place Bob Heironimus in Bluff Creek, California on the date in question, October 20, 1967, much less placing him in the costume.

On the heels of both authors comes another 2004 offering from Dr. David Daegling, an associate professor of anthropology at the University Of Florida in Gainesville. Daegling, no stranger to the Bigfoot studies, paid a visit to my house in 2003, hoping to get further information on the topic and permission to use my photos in his book. On August 6, 2003 I signed a contract with Dr. Daegling, which read in part: “This material is to appear in my work in a forthcoming book titled: The Search For Bigfoot.” Imagine my utter shock and disappointment when the book actually arrived with a different title: Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America’s Enduring Legend. Water under the bridge, I figured, but I felt cheated and short changed. For the reader who really wants to be exposed to the behind the scenes truth, I ask you to draw you own conclusions.

My own opinion about Daegling’s book on Bigfoot is he came to his conclusion first, then researched and wrote. What did not fit into the parameters of his hypothesis, he simply dismissed. As he writes in Bigfoot Exposed, “I am really only proposing one and focusing on that. The hypothesis is simple: Bigfoot is explicable entirely by human agency.”

As critical as I be in my many reviews on Bigfoot literature, I give great praise in Daegling’s use of notes at the end of each chapter. In a somewhat technical book such as Bigfoot Exposed, Daegling is not just writing per se; he is citing sources for what he writes and it is quite clear he is keenly aware of the many issues of Bigfooting. At the end of his tome there are eight pages of references, a bibliographical gold mine for those wanting to get further information on the topic. Writer Daegling has been in touch with many members of the Bigfoot community, including the likes of the late Rene Dahinden, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, the late Barbara Wasson and others by way of letter, e-mails, phone calls and personal communications, so one cannot argue that he didn’t listen to the chorus of Bigfooters - he just happened to not agree with them. That, in turn, angered many members who proudly go by the title as a Bigfooter.

Canadian Sasquatch authority, John Green, wasn’t positive about the book and stated, “there are enough factual errors and ill founded assumptions to thoroughly mislead anyone who has no other source of information on the subject.” Minnesota filmmaker Doug Hajicek, responsible for the production of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science weighed in as well, “this author should be ashamed of using his credentials to skate by with laziness of both action and thinking.” However, fellow skeptic Michael Dennett, sided with Dr. Daegling, noting it “was the best book I’ve seen, way above anything previously available. This book cuts through the fog to reveal the real as well as the unreal parts of the story.”

I’m not sure if Dr. Daegling proofread his manuscript. Says the Florida anthropologist, “individual mammals do not extend their home ranges across entire continents.” Whether you are in Alaska or Florida, all you have to do is roll down your window and you’ll see plenty of mammals: people.

John Green is taken to task on page 43: “Green tires quickly of the skepticism that constantly greets his efforts, yet he rarely feels compelled to answer his critics.” Not only was Green recently compelled to answer critic Daegling, but put him in his place as well. Daegling writes, “...the advocate camp has transformed the anecdotal evidence from 1958 into a body of scientifically verified facts.” And Green pounded back: “People who have never seen any tracks but claim to know more about them than those who did see them are not a rare breed, their number is legion, but for someone to join their ranks waving the flag of ‘scientific verification’ is a bald-face hypocrisy. What the tracks were like may be ‘anecdotal’ to Dr. Daegling, but it is firsthand knowledge to those of us who studied them, photographed them and cast them...”

Daegling might be his own worst enemy in reference to the “r” word: replication. It is seen on pages 62, 63, 132, 214 and probably elsewhere. In reference to an old story about scientists Fleischman and Pons and their ‘cold fusion’ Daegling would write, “...when researcher at other institutions tried to replicate the results, they came up empty more often than not.” Later he writes, “replication of results is absolutely critical for a claim to be scientifically valid.” Yet in reference to the Patterson-Gimlin film, Daegling is of the opinion the film depicts a costumed man. Using just a little bit of common sense, don’t you think that after almost 38 years, assuming the film to be fake, that someone, somewhere, could have replicated the movie by now?
Roger Patterson, the movie maker, didn’t have two cents to rub together, yet you mean to tell me that no one can replicate his movie? Give me a break.

Toward the end of Daegling’s book he tells his readers, “...Bigfoot symbolizes something of great concern. It is a human invention, and it is reinvented constantly.” As a reviewer, I must say I like Daegling the person, I am not overly impressed by his scientific reasoning. Writing a skeptical book on Bigfoot doesn’t make it so. Nature, I should remind you, doesn’t favor skepticism or believing.