BOOK REVIEWS

known as Micronesia. As Menzies pre- evidence we have on Nan Madol sup- understandable appeal to many readers, sents his theory, the fifteenth-century ports the orthodox scholarly theory that and it contains the kernels of some ideas Chinese had to have built large stone well-organized Micronesians had that are probably valid, such as the structures in their circumnavigational planned, built, and occupied Nan notion that the medieval world was voyages in order to take sun and star Madol approximately 200 years prior to more interconnected than we tend to readings for their maps. And, as his par- the fifteenth century, without the help recognize. But its weaknesses are signifi- ticular brand of circular logic seems to of any known outside group—European cant, and the danger is that the book, demand, since this theory is correct, or Asian. and so many others in its genre, pro- then every important archaeological While it is not possible to say that all motes wishful dunking and circular rea- complex, such as Nan Modal in the pre- of the existing evidence is explained by soning as a replacement for sound con- sent day state (and island) of Ponape in the current theory, certainly there is no clusions based on the scientific method. Micronesia, was built by the Chinese. data from Nan Madol itself that requires In today's world, we can ill afford to allow There is one serious problem with the presence of fifteenth-century such practices to emerge unchallenged this claim. There is not single shred of Chinese, and no one who studies the and dominate public discourse, and must internal evidence from Nan Madol that data would need such a presence, with continue to support informed thinking connects it with fifteenth-century the sole exception of Gavin Menzies. and critical review through periodicals China. On the contrary, every bit of A book such as this one has an such as .

Minnesota Iceman, a "man left over ! A New Look at Bigfoot from the Ice Age" exhibited in a block of ice as a sideshow attraction. The Iceman's background is too fantastic and Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in North America. By Loren involved to go into here, but suffice it to Coleman. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York. 2003. say that it involves an anonymous mil- ISBN 0-7434-6975-5. 278 pp. Softcover, $14. lionaire, a creationist conspiracy, a Bigfoot shot and killed in Minnesota, a showman known for spinning wild LDIIN C O I I M A N tales, and a fake Iceman/Bigfoot that was deviously switched for the "real" one. Despite its thoroughly dubious circumstances, though some of his oren Coleman has been investigat- provenance, two respected cryptozoolo- descriptions are a little subjective. For ing mysterious animals for decades, gists, Ivan Sanderson and Bernard example he says Roger Patterson's pony Land is author of several books on Heuvelmans, were certain it was not a the topic, including A to Z "smelled the creature and reared, bring- sideshow illusion but a real, modern and The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and ing both pony and rider to the ground" human ancestor. (Heuvelmans believed Other Mystery Primates Worldwide. His (p. 82). (We know the pony reared, but it to be a Neandertal killed in Vietnam.) latest is Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in there's no way to know if it was because One of die questions surrounding die North America The book is light on hard it smelled a Bigfoot, as Coleman matter- Iceman is, if it really was a Bigfoot (and evidence—there are no in-depth discus- of-factly states.) This subtle shift from not a faked dummy), why hadn't anyone sions of hair fibers or footprint finds— reporting to advocacy appears in other else noticed it during the years it had and instead deals with the general phe- places as well. been on public exhibition in many states? nomena of Bigfoot, including the crea- Coleman says of the Patterson crea- Coleman answers by quoting Sanderson: ture's cinematic history and a survey of ture that "this filmed Bigfoot does not "Just how many people with proper Bigfoot researchers. lock its knees; this would be extremely training in any of the biological sci- Coleman discusses the famous 1967 difficult for a hoaxer to do and yet look ences. . .go to such shows? If any do, how Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot film and its as smooth as this creature's walk" (p. many are trained physical anuSropoIo- 96). Yet experiments conducted by gists or primatologists?... The answer is: practically no one who attended the Benjamin Radford wrote about Bigfoot in David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt exhibit (p. 112)." Yet this simply begs the March/April 2002 SKEPTICAL (and published in the May/June 1999 die question; one could as well ask how INQUIRER. His book Media Mythmakers: SKEPTICAL INQUIRER) found it was much Sanderson and Heuvelmans know How Journalists, Activists, and Adver- instead quite easy to duplicate the about carnival exhibits and illusions. tisers Mislead Us was published in smooth gait seen in the film. September by Prometheus Books. Coleman includes a chapter on the

5 8 November/Oecember 2003 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER BOOK REVIEWS

They would not be the first scientists to be gay and more randy males are said to of scat. Expert Craig Newton gave the be fooled by tricksters. have a bent for bovine buggery.) results: the scat turned up nothing Coleman claims that the Iceman "was In chapter 2, Coleman discusses usable; "we couldn't conclude anything" never a carnival exhibit," (p. 115) and "The Strange Cast of Skookum," a mud from the saliva sample; and the Bigfoot that it was instead shown at shopping impression discovered in Washington hair sequences were "so human-like as to malls and state fairs (as if the latter did state in September 2000 by the Bigfoot most likely be contaminants." In other not have midways). "The elitist practice Field Researchers Organization words, the cast was largely a bust, little of labeling the Minnesota Iceman a 'car- (BFRO). A large cast was made of the more than another inconclusive (albeit nival exhibit' is a way to immediately impression, said to contain the body large) print find. diminish the possible significance" of the print of a reclining Bigfoot. Hair, saliva, Coleman searches for evidence of Iceman, Coleman writes. Yet Sanderson and waste samples were also collected, Bigfoot in myths, native legends, old himself seems to suggest that the venue raising the possibility of DNA analysis. newspaper reports, and even a novel was less than respectable when he asks If authentic, this find has the potential place: 1930s fruit crate labels. One how many educated, trained biologists to reveal a trove of useful information. curiosity of the history of Bigfoot sight- would "go to such shows." If it was not The BFRO has repeatedly refused to ings is that no contemporary accounts displayed as a carnival attraction, that provide outside investigators—myself exist of Bigfoot in California between would be news to Verne Langdon, a long- included—access to the cast. In stark 1900 and 1957. Such a striking absence time special effects artist whom the contrast to open scientific inquiry, the of reports seems odd, especially given the Iceman exhibitor approached to make a experts who were allowed to examine it fact that four of the top five "best places life-sized fake. Langdon claimed in a were hand-picked by the BFRO to be to see Bigfoot" Coleman lists are in or recent article in Cult Movies magazine filmed for a documentary. Those who near California. Why would creatures (number 38, page 69) that the Iceman wish to see their "evidence" can pay $35 that have presumably lived in the area for was to be used for appearances "on carni- for the documentary on DVD available centuries not be reported for nearly sixty val midways." In fact. Senior Research through a company called Whitewolf years? Coleman makes an interesting (if Fellow saw the exhibit first Entertainment. The fact that suppos- not entirely compelling) case that a hand at a carnival midway—at Toronto's edly scientific findings must be pur- Bigfoot-like illustration depicted on Canadian National Exhibition on August chased though an entertainment com- crate labels provide "critical evidence for 19, 1973. pany instead of appearing in peer- the awareness of hairy giants." reviewed journals reveals much about Coleman delves into new territory I would have liked more in-depth the BFRO's credibility. with a chapter tided "Sex and the Single (and more critical) analysis; however, Sasquatch." Jokes about large feet aside, Though Coleman spends five pages given its intended audience, Coleman's Bigfoot sex is a legitimate avenue of discussing the Skookum Cast, he stops decision to forego detailed discussions of inquiry—the creatures would have to just short of actually revealing the results Bigfoot evidence is understandable. For have a large enough breeding population of the BFRO's investigation. Aside from the average reader interested in Bigfoot, to survive through generations. (Though the mud imprint, three samples were this book is an accessible introduction apparently not all of them breed; subjected to DNA analysis: unidentified that surveys some interesting, recent, Coleman writes that some Bigfoot might hair, saliva from an apple core, and bits and oft-overlooked Bigfoot topics. •

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION (Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685) Date of filing: August 26, 2003. Title: The SKEPTICAI INQUIRER. Frequency of issue: Bi-monthly. Complete mailing address of known office of publication: 3965 Rensch Road, Amherst, Erie County. NY 14228-2713. P.O. Box 703, Amherst, Erie County, NY 14226-0703. Publisher: CSICOP. Inc. (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), 3965 Rensch Road, Amherst, Erie County, NY 14228-2713. Editor: Kendrick Frazier. 944 Deer Drive NE, A l b u q u e r q u e . NM 87122. Assistant Editor: Benjamin T. Radford, P.O. Box 703. Buffalo. NY 14226- 0703. Owner: CSICOP, Inc. (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), 3965 Rensch Road, Amherst Erie County, NY 14228-2713. P.O. Box 703. B u f f a l o , Erie County. NY 14226-0703. Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders: None. Aver, no. copies each issue during preceding 12 months: A. Total no. copies (net press run) 59,683. B. Paid and/or requested circulation (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales 22.175 (2) Mail subscriptions 34,935. C. Total paid and/or requested circula- tion (sum of B[1] and (2]) 57.110. D. Free distribution by mail (samples, complimentary, and other free) 797. E. Free distribution outside mail (by carrier or other means) 0. F. Total free distribution (sum of D and E) 800. G. Total distribution (sum of C a n d F) 57.910. H. Copies not dis- tributed (1) Office use. left over, spoiled 1.773; (2) returns from news agents 0. Total (sum of 6, H [1) and [21) 59,683. Percent paid and/or requested circulation 98.619%. Actual no. copies of single issue published nearest filing date: A. Total no. copies (net press run) 61.362. B. Paid and/or requested circulation (1) Sales t h r o u g h dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales 24,235 (2) Mail subscriptions 34,377. C. Total paid and/or requested circulation (sum of B[1] and [2]) 58,602. D. Free distribution by mail (samples, complimentary, and other free) 800. E. Free distribution outside mail (by carrier or other means) 0. F. Total free distribution (sum of D and E) 800. G. Total distribution (sum of C and F) 57.910. H. Copies not distributed (1) Office use. left over, spoiled 1,960; (2) returns from news agents 0. Total (sum of G, H |1) and (2]) 61,362. Percent paid and/or requested circulation 98.653%.

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER November/December 2003 59