1. What keeps you interested in this field?
I am sure that my interest is kept alive for the same reason as that of others - the prospect of finding out something new, and especially something that will lead directly to resolving the sasquatch issue. Historical information forms the basis for research on any subject, and with the internet, computers and scanners, it is possible to do meaningful research right in your own living room. When one has the necessary resources and the time, such work is highly rewarding.
2. Meet the Sasquatch was a big hit, how do you plan on topping that book, and what lies next for Chris Murphy?
Meet the Sasquatch was aimed at presenting the reasonably firm physical evidence we have that supports the existence of sasquatch. Other than a brief overview of the "sasquatch classics" the work does not present sightings and other sasquatch-related eyewitness evidence. The next step is to address this evidence.
3. What is your opinion of the Skookum Cast?
When I first met Penny Birnam, the artist who made the sasquatch heads for my Vancouver Museum exhibit, I naturally spent some time with her talking about the sasquatch. Penny is a genuine animal lover who has intently studied and depicted animals in her wonderful art for a good part of her life. When we came to the story of the Skookum Cast, I explained the whole situation, using Pete Travers' illustrations. Some weeks later, when visiting Penny at her place, the Skookum Cast came up in our conversation. She looked directly at me with a little smile on her face and twinkle in her eyes. She gave a little laugh and said, "He fooled you, didn't he. You thought he would walk right into that mud and leave footprints, but he didn't. He sat down on the edge of the mud and reached in and took the apples." Now, it was sort of the way she said this that gave me the feeling that she not only believed in the cast, but also (and more importantly) that she fully understood something of the nature of the creature that left the prints. In other words, it did what she would have expected it to do. This little incident highly increased my belief in the cast.
4. What impression has the Skookum Cast left on you?
Because I know Rick Noll, and have a lot of confidence in what he says and does, I think the cast is second only to the Patterson/Gimlin film in importance as to sasquatch-related evidence. Knowing people who are directly involved in incidents of this nature has a great bearing on the impression one gets. After meeting Bob Gimlin for the first time in 2003, and spending some time with him, I became highly convinced that the film is genuine. For certain, if either the Skookum Cast or the film are not on the level, neither Rick or Bob were part of any hoax scenario. What is even more important is that if someone wanted to hoax something with either of these two around, I would rate his or her chances at near zero.
5. Of all of the Sasquatch supposedly caught on Film, which Films to you deem authentic?
The Patterson/Gimlin film is certainly the most credible of any films. A close second is the Freeman film, especially since Doug Hajicek did his research (it appears the creature reaches down and picks up a young one). If people (researchers) did not know that Paul Freeman took this film, it would have received much more attention. Freeman admittedly took some "liberties" with regard to sasquatch evidence, so his credibility has suffered. All I am fully aware of is the hair sample fiasco in which he submitted a doll's hair for analysis. I am told, however, that he did this in dire desperation. He had apparently submitted several hairs but got no reply, so he submitted the doll's hair to see what would happen. Naturally, it was found to be a synthetic hair and the results were publicized. Nevertheless, given the credibility Freeman enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) with Drs. Krantz, Meldrum and Fahrenbach, perhaps his film should be given more consideration. (I will mention here that I received an astounding vote of confidence in Freeman from a reader who personally knew him and worked with him. It has made me think much more about the credibility Freeman's material.)
6. What is the most “far out” explanation you have heard on the existence of Sasquatch?
I hope you are ready for this. The most "far out" is the theory that the sasquatch is the Biblical Cain doomed to wander the earth. As we all know, Cain murdered his brother, Able, and as a result God condemed him to wander the earth, "A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth" (Genesis, IV, 12). Now, the Lord put a "mark" on Cain, which according to one theory may have been "an expression of countenance by which he was rendered an object of pity and contempt to all who saw him." The "mark" also served as some kind of a warning that Cain was not to be harmed. One might stretch this to assuming that he could not be killed. (Aside: Although many people don't put a lot of stock in the Old Testament, it is odd that nobody, in my experience, has the first name, "Cain".) Anyway, the theory kind of falls apart because there are sightings of female sasquatch, plus more than one sasquatch at the same time. I suppose we can again stretch things and say the condemnation extended to Cain and all of his descendants. Certainly, that would result in a lot of sasquatch wandering around.
7. Sasquatch or Bigfoot? Which one do you prefer and why?
Personally, I wish the word "bigfoot" would not have been assigned to the creature. It is a poor word in many ways, especially in writing - it does not have a sensible plural ("bigfeet" is silly and "bigfoots" is even worse). I have got around this by proclaiming that the word is both singular and plural (like the word deer or fish). To be consistent, I have made the same proclamation with the word "sasquatch," which I definitely prefer because it has some connection to a First Nations' word for the creature. I have, incidentally, got into all sorts of discussion on whether or not both words should be spelt with a capital letter. Neither word is in Webster's dictionary (least not the version I have), but the word yeti is, and it is NOT spelt with a capital letter.
8. What do you consider your biggest contribution to this field?
In a nut-shell, getting all of the clearest frames from the Patterson/Gimlin film published in color in one (now two) books. Not only the close-ups, but also the full frames. Incidentally, although the quality of the close-up prints is very good in Meet the Sasquatch, I think it is better in The Bigfoot Film Controversy. Further, just so we all know, those prints were taken directly from the transparencies (like a negative) used to create the Cibachrome prints. They are therefore as close as one can get to the actual film frames. I simply lucked out here. I asked for the prints and was sent the transparencies (I did not know they existed, although I seem to recall seeing one of them and wondered what it was for.)
9. What advice would you give to the “new” researcher?
1. Always, always, always, carry a camera, buy one of those small ones (not a digital) and put it on your belt or in your purse. No matter where you go, always have a camera. (Note: A digital image is okay, but a real photograph is best in this sort of work.)
2. Get and read John Green's book, Sasquatch, The Apes Among Us (Hancock House Publishers). This is a "big read" so be prepared to spend some time on it. Also get Meet the Sasquatch, mainly for its pictorial value. This book has more pictures and illustrations that any book on the subject, and they are in color. Most of them are John Green's photos, are of his artifacts, or are related to his original research, so it ties in nicely with his book. (Note John Green and Tom Steenburg were associated with me in the preparation of this book.)
3. Attend sasquatch/bigfoot conferences at every opportunity. Meet the speakers - simply go over and talk to them. I have not met one who was not a very nice person.
4. If you have a lot of life responsibilities (young family, pressing career, and so forth) don't let the sasquatch become an obsession. I have mentioned that this can and has happened. Certainly, in many ways it has happened to me, but I don't have any responsibilities and am beyond the point of assuming any.
5. Your chances of having a sighting are best when you are riding in you car in remote or semi-remote areas. Always keep this in mind so that you are prepared if the creature appears. The main reason we have the Patterson/Gimlin film is because Roger Patterson was fully prepared for an encounter. Most people are not prepared and that is why we do not have more and perhaps better photographic evidence.
10. The Sasquatch Chronicle… Is this the working title of a new book you are working on, and if so, can you tell us anything about it?
Sasquatch sighting/incident reports form the "not tangible" side of sasquatch evidence. In other words they are what people say. They cannot be substantiated unless a photograph was taken or a cast made of a footprint. I have attempted to put all of the photographs and casts we have (i.e., available to me) on the table in Meet the Sasquatch. I did not include sighting reports in this work other than a few classics to sort of tie in some recent history.
I now wish to address the sightings/incident reports, and am doing so in a work titled The Sasquatch Chronicle. In my opinion, these type of reports are best presented in chronological order with each report having its own space. In other words, not a running commentary. Current Chronicle books (Chronicle of America, Chronicle of Canada and so forth) that are found in libraries show exactly what I am referring to. Furthermore, I believe sasquatch stories need to be reasonably illustrated, otherwise they have a tendency to sort of meld into each other.
Most of the stories I am providing are from newspaper or magazine reports. Those that were written prior to 1924, are exactly the same, or essentially the same as they were written. Those written in and after 1924 are re-writes for legal purposes. However, the newspaper report method is maintained. In other words, the article appears just like a newspaper article (again, the Chronicle books mentioned show the exact style).
Just when I will finish this work is not certain. It will not be anytime soon. I envision a full size book (8.5" x 11") in color, possibly 1,000 pages.
Huge numbers of hits have crashed several sites, thanks to this critter. “It exists,” Rachel Goldberg, Courtney Fruin and Jenna Hewitt asserted on local cable channel Plum TV, denying suspicions that they’d Photoshopped a picture of a dead dog. 
Is there another unknown felid on the University of Maryland campus? Should we question the quick identification being given to this cat? And what does this have to do with news coming out of Australia? Images. 
It takes some planning and heavy expenses to relocate an entire museum: “The 8-foot-tall, 500-pound Bigfoot is not easy to move around,” Coleman said. 
