Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Link Of The Month
I have transferred this over to this blog. The link is: Billy Willard's Sasquatch Watch
Professor to discuss ‘Bigfoot’ legend on Discovery Channel Feb. 1
Tall tale or Texan? An exhibit takes a serious look at the existence of Bigfoot
09-26-06: Forging a Second Identity
Jeff Meldrum's 'Sasquatch'
Do they have lunch? Who picks up the tab? I'm guessing science.
Forge is an imprint of Tor Books responsible for some pretty odd books, and none odder (of late) than the double-hitter of 'Haunted Homeland' by Michael Norman (Forge / Tor ; September 19, 2006 ; $27.95) and 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science' by Jeff Meldrum (Forge / Tor ; September 19, 2006 ; $27.95). Now, I know Forge because they're the imprint that launched the careers of Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child when they published 'Relic', their first collaboration, back in the before-time. It's a good book, and it gives a good idea as to what Forge is all about. Heretofore, at least, Forge has always seemed to me to be the closer-to-the-mainstream cousin of Tor. The books are those that are not DEFINITELY science fiction or fantasy; they tend towards mainstream thrillers with a soupcon of strange. They're generally less likely to be interesting to me personally as a result, though there are exceptions, such as the Preston and Child novel. Heck, it had a guaranteed monster.
But as many Forge titles as I've seen, I've never seen any quite like these two, and they're both pretty interesting. 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science' by Jeff Meldrum is the most straightforward, so let's start there. First off, obviously, perhaps, what we have here is a non-fiction book, and I guess that's part of the oddness. The cover design here, nice though it is, is clearly reminiscent of the fiction titles, even though the book is clearly not fiction. If you've read a few Tor books and seen a few Forge titles, it might cause some cognitive dissonance if not outright confusion. After all, Tor often partners with the SciFi channel, who recently broadcast yet another bad original movie, this one something to do with Bigfoot. You might suspect that this is a novelization of that bad movie, but you’d be wrong. Still, I'm used to seeing this "look" for a fictional title, and 'Sasquatch' is not fictional. Really!
'Sasquatch' is associated with a television program, but not from the SciFi channel; instead it’s from the Discovery Channel special of the same name. I missed that too, but frankly, I'm happier with the book which is a lavish, well-written affair by the protégé of Grover Kranz, who wrote 'Big Footprints'. I actually own and have read 'Big Footprints', which seemed to be to as sober as one can get with these sort of books, on par with the fine work by Loren Coleman. So, what's up with 'Sasquatch' and who wants to or needs to read it?
Fist and foremost, let me say that Forge has done an outstanding job on this book. It's an unusual format, 8" by 9 1/2" instead of the usual 6 1/2" by 9 1/2". It's engagingly written, and includes a boatload of photos and illustrations; B&W embedded in the text and a slick center selection of full-color plates. Nice. It's the sort of thing that might get cracked by your precocious pre-teen, and has enough pick-it-up-and-browse appeal that it would make a good coffee table book.
Meldrum is a primatologist who specializes in studies of how primates move and how their motion is supported by their physical structure. In 'Sasquatch', he goes step-by-step though the evidence, and reading about this is pretty interesting, assuming that cryptozoology is of interest to you. The illustrations that pepper the text make the book much easier to read than it might otherwise be. Meldrum makes a great case for the evidence being at least worthy of examination and he examines it carefully.
The real question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to read non-fiction about Bigfoot? If the answer is yes, and you've read Kranz' 'Big Footprints', Coleman's many works on the subject ('Tom Slick and the Search for the Yeti' / 'Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology'), then Meldrum's book is a great chaser and bringer-up-to-date. And there are lots of questions to answer, particularly with regards to DNA analysis of purported Bigfoot hairs and droppings. And yes, Meldrum gets there. Is it worth going on the journey with him? Definitely, ikf this is the sort of journey you're interested in making.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Friday, February 02, 2007
Dr. Nina Jablonski
The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration
Lecturing and Research: Anthropology and Archaeology, Exploration of the Ancient Prehistory of Nepal
August 1999-January 1999
Various articles on David Daegling
REVIEW BY: Thomas Steenburg
Dr. David Daegling's Book: "Bigfoot Exposed"
Editorial: M.K. Davis and the Patterson Movie controversy
I have been very reticent to discuss this for the past two months, but I feel I need to say this. We all already know about the circumstances surrounding the controversial statements made by M.K., so I will not rehash them now. However, M.K. has been laying low lately, and I have not talked to him in a while. I want to make it clear that the Southeast Sasquatch Association fully supports M.K. in most of his work, except we do not agree that the creature in the Patterson Movie is human, nor does there seem to be a visible stick, just blur. I want to make it clear that M.K. has done a great deal of terrific work on the film and has brought clarity to the admittedly grainy film. However, his assertion that the creature is human based on whether or not it carries a stick and may or may not have humanlike lips, I do not agree with, and that's fine. We do not all have to agree on everything, but we can at least remain friends. I hope M.K. reads this and understands that I and the S.S.A. is not against him at all, we just have a difference of opinion on this, is all. I think the creature is humanLIKE, but not a large hairy human. It may be humanoid, possibly Paranthropus, but in my opinion, it is not human. No human has those kind of proportions, nor the mid-foot flexibility. No human is that large. I think it is some sort of humanoid, but not a large hairy human. M.K. is, however, a valuable resource on this film and has done a great job on it. The Southeast Sasquatch Association supports M.K. 100%.
Editorial: Misinformed Skeptics
It seems that we in the Sasquatch community do seem to deal with skepticism, and most of them seem to be pretty smart. Some of the more informed skeptics are Benjamin Radford, Scott Herriott, David Begun and David Daegling, despite his parsimonious statements. However, as displayed by the recent "Best Evidence: Bigfoot" show last night, there are quite a few misinformed skeptics, such as Dr. Nina Jablonski and Dr. John Turtle. Dr. Jablonski, an anthropologist, made a few errors last night, by asserting that no hair or scat of Sasquatch had been found, or that night-nests had not been found either. Obviously, she had not been keeping up with events in the Sasquatch field or she would not have said that. Another egregious example from last night was Dr. John Turtle, a psychology professor who said that sightings of Sasquatch could be explained away by people WANTING to see Sasquatch. He was quick to add that these people are not liars, just mistaken. They are bad examples of misinformed skeptics who don't bother to read up on it, or even get out in the field to actually do research. At least Radford, Begun, Herriott and Daegling do get out in the field on occasion. The armchair skeptics, such as Jablonski and Turtle, don't seem to know or understand the first thing about being good skeptics. Informed skepticism is fine; uninformed skepticism is not.
Are these photos of Sasquatch?
Rob Bozzuto sent me these after seeing them on the Internet. He showed them to Ray Crowe and Ray said they looked genuine. However, I have seen these phots before, as part of a promotion for a movie project on Bigfoot. Are they merely a man in a suit? From the angle they are taken, it is hard to tell. I would like your opinions on it, please.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Review: Best Evidence: Bigfoot
This special, which I give 3 stars despite the skepticism in the show, wasn't all that bad. However, eyewitness accounts are dismissed by Dr. John Turtle as people WANTING to see Sasquatch, as well as the footprint evidence being scrutinized by Dr. David Begun, a paleoanthropologist in Canada, as well as examination by Dr. Nina Jablonski. The special seems to be a bit unfair and unbalanced when it comes to the evidence scrutiny, but what are you gonna do? The two bright spots are Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Dr. John Bindernagel, who are excellent as always. A recreation of the Patterson Movie by an actor in a Bigfoot suit seems, on the surface, to be a match with the subject of the film. The conclusion of the study, which Dr. Meldrum participated in, seems to conclude that at least some aspects of the walk can be replicated by a human, but not all. Still, the skeptical viewpoint is overshadowing the viewpoint of the film being a film of a real Sasquatch, which should not bother anyone in the Sasquatch community because the film is still, admittedly, questionable. Incidentally, a lot of the Rick Noll/M.K. Davis enhancements on the film are being used on the show. Dick Smith, an Oscar-winning makeup artist, believes the film to be a hoax. The John Chambers rumor is examined as well by Mr. Smith and he does not believe that Chambers is responsible for the alleged costume in the film. All in all, it was pretty fair, to be quite honest, even with a little skepticism thrown in.
BIGFOOT TIMES, JANUARY 2007
The January edition of the Bigfoot Times has been released. Find out more about that frozen thing, the Minnesota Iceman, also known as BOZO. The Iceman, it turns out, has an IM Index of 87 and the movie subject from the Patterson-Gimlin film has an IM Index of between 85 and 90. Read on...it's all in the Bigfoot Times. Membership is very reasonable. Only $12 per year for USA residents. Get your subscription going today and start your 2007 on the right (or big) foot!
Discovery Channel, FEBRUARY 1, 2007
Episode 2: Bigfoot
It is one of the most enduring unresolved mysteries. Is the missing link between early humans and apes alive today in the dense temperate forests of the Pacific Northwest? In 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were investigating reports of Bigfoot/Sasquatch sightings in the Bluff Creek area of Northern California. They struck gold when their film camera captured a 22-second shot of an alleged female Bigfoot before she disappeared into the woods. Most scientists believe that this film record and a set of footprint casts that accompany it are an elaborate hoax. But a few self-proclaimed experts make the opposite, startling claim. To them, it reveals compelling proof of a living human-ape. We consulted with numerous researchers and professionals — from anthropologists to orthopaedic surgeons to a famous special effects makeup artist — to evaluate some of the best evidence. Also, we obtained four casts from the Smithsonian Institution as well as the shaky Patterson-Gimlin film. Using new digital video enhancement and stabilization techniques, as well as the expertise of Stanford University's Gait Laboratory, BEST EVIDENCE examines the film creature's costume, posture and gait frame-by-frame against the movements of an actor in a suit. The results will surprise even the most skeptical viewer.
Premiere: Feb. 1, 2007
Episode
CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTING...CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTING...CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTING
Cryptozoology Double-Header Tonight
Tonight, on the History Channel, at 8:00 EST, "Giganto: The Real King Kong" will air. Then, on the Discovery Channel at 9:00 EST, "Best Evidence: Bigfoot" airs, featuring a recreation of the Patterson Movie as well as Dr. Jeff Meldrum in his lab at Idaho State University. The recreation was done by Stanford University in California. Check local listings for time and channel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)