Book Review of Janet & Colin Bord's Book

Book Review by Daniel Perez, 10926 Milano Avenue, Norwalk, California 90650-1638. Telephone: (951) 509-2951. E-mail: perez952@sbcglobal.net February 2006.

Bord, Janet and Colin. Bigfoot Casebook Updated: Sightings and Encounters From 1818 to 2004. Pine Winds Press, 39129 264th Avenue S.E., Enumclaw, Washington 98022. 344 pages. March 2006 publication, $ 23.00 paperback, postpaid. ISBN: 0-937663-10-7. Black and white pictures, illustrations, preface, acknowledgments, bibliography, index. Telephone: (360) 825-7797. www.IdyllArbor.com and e-mail: sales@idyllarbor.com

English writers and researchers Janet & Colin Bord, authors of such works as Alien Animals and Modern Mysteries of Britain have taken their highly regarded 1980 tome, The Bigfoot Casebook and updated it in 2006, calling it just that, Bigfoot Casebook Updated. What is abundantly clear from the outset of this book is Bigfoot, Sasquatch - call them what you will- is not a modern day invention and the recorded history of the phenomenon in North America (at least in this work) goes back a staggering 188 years! The Bord’s earliest entry is from New York’s Exeter Watchman from September 1818 with a report of “the wild man of the woods,” by a “gentleman of unquestionable veracity.” One of their last reports deals with a woman driving, Jennifer Ward, in August 2004 in northern Polk County, Florida, when she observed an eight foot tall animal standing in a drainage ditch alongside the road. Could all this be some old mythology dressed up for this century or could there be a real animal behind the mythology?

As writer Loren Coleman noted in the foreword to this book, “The Bords’ use of a Fortean philosophy of inclusion combined with a restrictive exclusive look at eyewitness accounts gave this book a cutting edge...” “The Bords presented the data, without bias actually, stepped back, and allowed decades of researchers to make of it what they wanted.” No doubt Janet and Colin Bord have done a wonderful job on this compilation, with several new and rare photographs but on page 203 it is stated categorically the now famous Myakka Skunk Ape pictures were shot in Sarasota County, Florida when, in fact, no one ever found the exact film site where those questionable pictures were snapped and the witness(es) never came forward. A major flaw to Bigfoot Casebook Updated is the authors failed to include an updated map of North America with distribution of Bigfoot sightings. In their 1982 work the Bords noted 111 reports for Washington; 76 for Oregon and 102 for California but any inquisitive reader demanding their money’s worth might wonder what those numbers might be in 2006.

The Bords do get a thumbs up for giving clarification about the late Ray L. Wallace and his faking of many Bigfoot tracks and his proper place and role in Bigfoot lore. That thumbs up is quickly followed by a black eye as the writers include a picture of the infamous Wild Creek, Washington Bigfoot supplied by Cliff Crook, an outcast in the fraternity of Bigfooting, called a “notorious hoaxer” by Matt Moneymaker. The Bords do note, of course, “and that the supposed ‘forest patrol officer’ [who snapped the Wild Creek pictures - said to be 14 in number] has never been identified.” Well, isn’t that interesting! It turns out, Cliff Crook from Bothell, Washington has had numerous repeat offenses with the same scenario: pictures of “Bigfoot” were supplied exclusively to him and anonymity was preferred. Of the controversial and late Paul Freeman (our equivalent to Billy Meier in ufology) the Bords include many pictures plus a note, “...caused some researchers to doubt whether Freeman’s claims were genuine.” Again, any reader might wonder who these researchers might be, which the Bords could have easily included. The late Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus, Peter Byrne and John Green all investigated Paul Freeman firsthand and had considerable doubt about his many claims when it came to Bigfoot.

In light of the fact The Bigfoot Casebook is out of print with rare copies selling for over $50 on the Internet The Bigfoot Casebook Updated is a welcome addition for readers who like what has transpired in Bigfooting since 1982. It turns out it is more of the same. That being the case perhaps the angle the Bords could have taken was to reinvestigate and research some of the older reports to see if the eyewitness changed or stuck to their story.

We might summarize with words by George W. Early, who reviewed the original Casebook in October 1982 for Fate: “Bigfoot researchers are beginning to recognize what the ufologists finally learned: numbers aren’t proof. Proof is a Bigfoot, dead or alive...”

END

Bob Gimlin reads the Bigfoot Times

Book Review of Dr. David Daegling's book

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 researchers 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.

END

Book Review Of Michael Newton's Book

Book Review by Daniel Perez, 10926 Milano Avenue, Norwalk, California 90650-1638. Telephone: (951) 509-2951. E-mail: perez952@sbcglobal.net. February 2005.
Newton, Michael. Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide To Hidden Animals And Their Pursuers. McFarland & Company, Incorporated, Post Office Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640. 576 pages, 2004 publication. $99.00 (postpaid), illustrated case binding (hardback). ISBN: 0-7864-2036-7. Black and white pictures and illustrations, appendices, bibliography, index. Telephone: (800) 253-2187. www.mcfarlandpub.com.
Where librarian George M. Eberhart left off with his 2002 two-volume reference work, Mysterious Creatures: A Guide To Cryptozoology, Michael Newton fills in the gaps with his outstanding Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide, a book designed for school and university libraries, not to mention the true cryptozoologist, who simply cannot afford to pass on this one. Briefly, cryptozoology is the science of hidden or unknown animals.
Michael Newton, the author of over 180 books, was introduced to the murky world of cryptozoology by a 1957 article in the Reader’s Digest about Loch Ness. According to Mr. Newton, “that brief report fired my imagination, and my fascination deepened when Bigfoot made his media debut in 1958.” Shortly thereafter, a copy of the late Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans’ On The Track Of Unknown Animals showed up at his school library and he was “hooked for life.” His encyclopedia is loaded down with 2,744 entries and “profiles of 77 groups and 112 individuals who have made some contribution to the field of cryptozoology.” (This reviewer included). By contrast George Eberhart’s Mysterious Creatures is comprised of only 1,085 entries on unknown animals.
Competition is apparent as well, as Michael Newton does not list Eberhart’s 2002 book in the bibliography, nor is he found in the index. Where Mr. Eberhart dedicates his book to the father of cyrptozoology, Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, Newton’s book is not only dedicated to Heuvelmans, but several others as well.

The scope of Michael Newton’s book is on the “flesh-and-blood” animals which are thought to exist and arrangement of the material is in standard alphabetical order. The pages have double columns and it is user friendly with both cross-references and sources for the numerous entries. Although “every effort has been made to ensure accuracy” of the massive work, there is bound to be some spilled milk. Bigfooter Peter Byrne was born in 1925, not 1927 as noted. Matt Moneymaker is noted as a “California attorney.” He is not. Surely there must be other simple mistakes, but that is the cost of doing the writing business on such a colossal scale.

Michael Newton doesn’t stop with just entries on people and cryptids, the back matter is comprised of a very useful glossary, a stunning “cryptozoology timeline” and “Internet links” along with a very thorough bibliography and index. A lot of time was spent crafting this book yet writer Newton swears, “this work in hand required 12 months to write...” This work would not be complete without “crypto-artist” William Rebsamen whose illustrations are sprinkled throughout the volume.

It is interesting to compare how Newton and Eberhart write about their entries. On the Minnesota Iceman, Newton writes, “In autumn 1967, Minnesota zoology student Terry Cullen saw the exhibit in Milwaukee, then proceeded to trail it across the Midwest...” “Finally, in late 1968, Cullen contacted Ivan Sanderson...” “Intrigued by the friend’s report, Sanderson and colleague Bernard Heuvealmans drove to Hansen’s farm at Rollingstone, Minnesota on 16 December 1968.”
Eberhart listed the Minnesota Iceman like this: “After being alerted by university student Terry Cullen that a carnival was exhibiting a hairy man encased in ice, Ivan Sanderson and Bernard heuvelmans visited the exhibit from December 16 to 18, 1968, at the home of its owner, Frank Hansen, near Rollingstone, Minnesota.”
Writing in the introduction, writer Michael Newton reviews the frequently asked questions, such as “how does cryptozoology work,” “what about the skeptics,” and “why does cryptozoology matter?”
“We live,” Mr. Newton writes, “in a world of possibilities. The days of exploration and discovery are not behind us yet. But if we never seek, we cannot find. And if we never ask, how can we learn?” It is apparent here and throughout this wonderful work, the Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, that not only does Michael Newton have a firm grasp on the subject matter, but his writing is clear and to the point. Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology is a very important work and a worthwhile addition to the growing science of cryptozoology.

END.

Peter Byrne & Todd Neiss in 2008

FATE,

Fate magazine, September-October 2008, has a substantial article about Bigfoot in the 1860s by W. Ritchie Benedict, from Calgary, Alberta. Have a look.

Roger Patterson's Book For Sale

Book Happy Booksellser is selling a good copy of Roger Patterson's book, $60.50. Have a look. Phone number: 503 771-5140

"Our Two Cents Worth," by Dmitri Bayanov, from www.alamas.ru

“TWO CENTS” ONCE CONTRIBUTED BY RUSSIAN HOMINOLOGISTS ON ANALYSIS OF BIGFOOT EVIDENCE

As I recall, 1976 brought high hopes to me. In connection with the article, “Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus” (Current Anthropology, June 1976), Dr. Marjorie Halpin, of Museum of Anthropology, the University of British Columbia, wrote us: “I am most excited that the range of phenomena which you consider overlaps significantly with that I hope to explore in a conference. . . , “ “It is true that in the past North American anthropologists have refused to take Sasquatch and similar phenomena seriously. This seems to be changing. . . ,” “This seems to be an idea or topic whose time has come. I very much hope that you will be able to share in its exploration with us.”

The conference, “Anthropology of the Unknown: Sasquatch and Similar Phenomena,” was to be the first academic conference of this kind and took two years to secure funds and be prepared. It was held May 10-13, 1978, at the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver.

Seven years earlier, in December 1971, Rene Dahinden, of British Columbia, brought us in Moscow “a sackful of wonderful gifts: photographs and plaster casts of Sasquatch footprints, taperecorded interviews of Patterson, Gimlin, Ostman, and other eyewitnesses, several copies of John Green’s books, documentaries of Dahinden’s own search for Bigfoot, and above all, the Patterson-Gimlin film.” Rene asked us to study that evidence, the Bigfoot footage in particular, in order to verify its authenticity.

The task was tackled by Igor Bourtsev, myself, Alexandra Bourtseva, Dmitri Donskoy, and Nikita Lavinsky. The initial results of our investigations were written up by me in a paper, “Preliminary Notes on the Materials of American Hominologists,” and published in part in the book Sasquatch, 1973, by Don Hunter with Rene Dahinden.

The long report I composed and penned for the Vancouver Conference was titled “Analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin Film and Some Footprints Ascribed to the Sasquatch: Why We Find Them Authentic.” As authors (or co-authors) of the report were registered the names of Dmitri Bayanov, Igor Bourtsev, and Rene Dahinden. The latter as a sign of our gratitude for providing us with all that evidence, and because Rene demanded that our findings could not be revealed without his permission. His name on the report satisfied him.

Besides the report, I came up with the following proposal to the fellow-hominologists assembled in Vancouver:

In my view the first Sasquatch Conference will fulfill its mission if it results in something even more important and vitally needed: a permanent international body to cope with our problem. I see no other way for us to make real progress. What needs to be realized is that it is not just a question of obtaining decisive evidence but rather of creating a standard framework and normal conditions for the processing of the already existing and newly coming information, as is the case with all established sciences. (...)

What is needed for a science to exist?—a collection of relevant and potentially important facts, for one; a number of researchers interested in these facts, for two; a theory, or theories, to evaluate these facts, for three; and an organization to coordinate and finance the research efforts, for four. We are already in business as regards the first three conditions, but are glaringly lacking and handicapped as regards condition number four. This creates a kind of negative feedback and a steady state of stalemate in the overall situation, which can last indefinitely unless we opt to play differently. (...)

To get established and recognized by the “establishment” it is necessary to set up yet another establishment, one of our own. Since there may not be enough clout for the venture on a national basis, it has to be tried on an international one.

Hence the idea of a World Hominological Organization. Purposes: To prove beyond doubt the existence of relict hominoids; to protect their populations; to study these creatures by humane methods; to collect, translate, and exchange information on the subject the world over. (...) In short, let’s get organized and spend our energy on something more creative than arguments with the uninformed:

Hominologists of all lands, unite
To show humankind what is true and right.”

The Soviet authorities did not permit Igor Bourtsev and me to attend the conference. Our report was presented in absentia by Marjorie Halpin herself, who called it “a wonderful conference paper.” The audience applauded it, and newspapers in Vancouver, Seattle and San Francisco reported about it in articles headed “Ah Yes, Comrades, There Is A Bigfoot,” “Sasquatch Film Is Authentic Russians Claim,” “Soviet Scientists Say Bigfoot Is As Real As The World Is Round.” Grover Krantz wrote me: “Halpin said a book of all conference papers should be out in less than a year.” But some time later I received a letter from Dr. Roderick Sprague of the University of Idaho, saying:

I sincerely hope that the conference papers are published because many of us in the academic world have already received a great deal of abuse for our participation. We would hate to see our efforts not resulting in some tangible object.

I had information that Marjorie Halpin said she never realized what she was getting into when she “started all this.”

The volume resulting from the Vancouver Conference, Manlike Monsters On Trial, was published in 1980, offering fine plates from the frames of the Patterson-Gimlin film, but not a word about our report which had to be illustrated with these very frames. Absent also in the volume were the papers by Dr. Grover Krantz, Dr. Vladimir Markotic, Dr.Roderick Sprague, Dr. Marie-Jeanne Koffmann, and some others. So 1980 brought us a major fiasco, giving to understand what formidable, largely hidden “tectonic” forces opposed and subverted our research. It became clear that my proposal of A World Hominological Organization was nothing but pipe dreams. Still such a body is a sine qua non of progress. Today, 30 years later, this still remains priority number one. Regrettably, our Moscow Center of Hominology, devoid of funding, is unable to play this role.

In 1984, important parts of our report did see the light of day in the book, The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominoids, published by Vladimir Markotic and edited by him and Grover Krantz. The volume included also the other papers rejected by the Vancouver Conference organizers. Without asking us, the editors divided the shorter version of our report and published the text as two separate articles, which is regrettable because this violated the methodology I used in the paper.

Rene Dahinden was against Markotic’s initiative and publication, but we ignored his ban and protests. Still Marcotic did not dare illustrate our articles for fear of Dahinden’s possible court action concerning copyright. The whole sad story of our old contribution to bigfootery is offered in full detail in America’s Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction. U.S. Evidence Verified in Russia (Cryptologos Publishers, Moscow, 1997). But written for the general reader, the book lacks most of the biological and technical details of our analyses. As the Markotic book is little known among Bigfoot investigators, Chris Murphy repruduced at my request our two articles contained in the book (my thanks to him!) and they are available below, together with the illustrations reproduced from America’s Bigfoot. . . I offer them here because the evidence we discuss, the 1967 Documentary in particular, has not been given its due yet. In this connection, I regard the disrespectful, suspicious and slanderous treatment of Robert Gimlin and the late Roger Patterson as gross violation of human rights in America.

It is noteworthy that our report at the Vancouver Conference was the only one analyzing and verifying the Patterson-Gimlin documentary. According to Dr. Roderick Sprague, “It is by far the best and most thorough discussion of this classic film” (Cryptozology, Vol.5, 1986, p. 105). Russian hominologists were the first to authenticate the film and publicly declare Bigfoot definitely real. If you ask what made us, or at least myself, a foreigner to America, so confident and affirmative regarding a most controversial subject in that country, my answer is this:

I am a student of Boris Porshnev, who proclaimed “a scientific revolution in primatology.” Following him, I recognize the great philosophical and educational importance of paleoanthropology, and at the same time regard its record as very spotty, superficial and speculative. Anthropogenesis is still full of unknowns. Considering the young evolutionary age of Homo sapiens, the survival of presapiens hominids seems theoretically very probable. The abundant historical and modern evidence to this effect turns theoretical probability into practical fact. So relict hominoids (actually hominids) are a stark reality of the modern world. They were unknown to science because there was no science to know them.

Having learned Porshnev’s works and views, and having interviewed witnesses in the Caucasus, I became convinced of the existence of relict hominids, and it was with this conviction that I studied the presumed Bigfoot evidence provided by our North American colleagues. I found it very similar to the evidence we have in the Old World. North American evidence testified to the existence of non-sapiens hominids, NOT apes, in that continent. And when I saw that the three kinds of evidence—eyewitness sightings, footprints, and the Patterson-Gimlin film—were perfectly matching, and in addition correlated with certain paleoanthropological data, I had no shade of a doubt left that the evidence we studied was genuine and Bigfoot is real. It became clear to me then that we must analyze and present these three kinds of evidence in a package, in one paper, showing and explaining their interconnections. This makes positive conclusions logically inescapable. Such is the difference of my approach and methodology from those of my overseas colleagues.

As I wrote in 2003 to The Sunday Denver Post, “Wild hairy hominids do exist on earth today, and on the agenda is not their discovery but general recognition of their re-discovery in the 20th century.” I say re-discovery because these beings were known to ancient and medieval naturalists. So we have to recall and remember important lessons in the history of science. The fact of earth’s movement around the sun and rotation was proclaimed in the ancient world, then rediscovered and proved by Copernicus and Galileo in the end of the Middle Ages. Did they demonstrate the earth’s rotation? No, they couldn’t. They proved it by logical means, and it took a couple of centuries for most academics to accept that logic. After the Copernican revolution came the Darwinian. Did Darwin demonstrate evolution. No, he couldn’t. He proved it by logical means, and it took a long time for most biologists to accept his logic and the fact of evolution.

Logic is Queen of Science, obeyed and recognized by all sciences. Logic is their common treasure. Then what separates and differentiates sciences? They are separated and differentiated by their subject matter and methodology. This means that in every science logic works in accordance with each science’s subject-matter and methodology. In physics it works in accordance with physical reality; in biology in accordance with biological reality. Now, hominology has its own specifics, its own subject-matter and inevitably its own methodology. The latter cannot be the same as in zoology or exactly the same as in cultural anthropology dealing with Homo sapiens. Hominology is a multidisciplinary field of study, and contributions to it by zoologists, anthropologists, paleoanthropologists, linguists, physicians, etc., are very necessary and most welcome. But the mentor tone by zoologists and paleoanthropologists — their demands for a body or bones as the only condition of the discovery’s proof and recognition—are not acceptable, for hominology is not their “turf.” My North American colleagues have wasted too much time trying to meet the demands of academic nonhominologists. Yes, we badly need acceptance and recognition by the mainstream, but without compromising our rules and principles. To win over open-minded and uninformed or misinformed skeptics, we should pay attention to those who are willing to listen and learn, and ignore or expose the vociferous close-minded ones properly dubbed scoftics.

So help yourself in the below to one of the logical, and thus strictly scientific, proofs of Bigfoot’s reality presented by Russian hominologists in the 20th century—and find more proof in fine books by North American authors, from John Green and Grover Krantz to Chris Murphy and Jeff Meldrum. Bring about one more revolution in science.

Finally, let me remark that when you read in the articles a quotation followed by the words “(Hunter and Dahinden 1973: 173),” the quoted words belong to me, not Hunter and Dahinden. The editors did not make this clear.

Dmitri Bayanov

International Center of Hominology
Russia
September 2008

Bigfoot Observer's Field Manual, by Robert Morgan

Filled with practical advice on how to have an encounter with Forest Giants. He talks a lot about his own experiences and offers advice based on years spent in the field. For those who are curious about Robert Morgan's take on Bigfoot research, this book and Soul Snatchers offer some of the best reading in the field.

This work is available from Pine Winds Press. A review copy is heading my way but at the present time I know nothting about this work other than what you are reading here.

Best,

Daniel Perez

WIFE SWAP CASTING FAMILIES WHO BELIEVE IN BIGFOOT

ABC’s WIFE SWAP CASTING DYNAMIC FAMILIES WHO TRULY BELIEVE BIGFOOT EXISTS!

ABC’s primetime series “Wife Swap” is currently casting its fifth season and looking for unique families with plenty of personality to take part in the show.  Specifically, we're looking for dynamic families who strongly believe in the existence of Bigfoot and have had sightings themselves or are actively seeking proof of some kind. Families who participate in this documentary-style program are given a unique opportunity to share their beliefs and lifestyles with another family. It is truly a once in a lifetime experience that can be life changing for everyone.
Each week on Wife Swap, the mothers from two families with different values and belief systems will exchange lives. It’s an amazing family experience and opportunity to learn how others lead their lives. Half of the week, mom lives the life of the family she is staying with. After making her observations, she introduces several "rule changes," where she implements rules and activities that are important to her family. It's a positive experience for people to not only learn but teach about other families and other ways of life. Wife Swap airs on Disney owned ABC television on Fridays at 8 pm- the family hour!
If you are a two-parent family with at least one child over the age of 5 living at home, and you think your family would make terrific TV, contact us to be a part of this groundbreaking show!


To apply or get information about the show
Please contact:

Danielle Gervais (Casting Producer)
Call: 646-747-7956
Email: Wifeswap.Danielle@gmail.com or Danielle.Gervais@castingrdf.com

JUST LET THEM KNOW YOU READ IT IN THE BIGFOOT TIMES.NET SITE. I SPOKE WITH DANIELLE GERVAIS TODAY AND IT'S FOR REAL.