DOCSLIB.ORG

NORMAL SCIENCE, REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE Notes on Bryan Sykes’ the Nature of the Beast

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NORMAL SCIENCE, REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE Notes on Bryan Sykes’ the Nature of the Beast The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 4:75-78 (2015) Comment NORMAL SCIENCE, REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE Notes on Bryan Sykes’ The Nature of the Beast Hominology research has science is, at heart, a branch of philosophy, been joined in recent years which is the reason practitioners qualify as by two geneticists: Dr. PhDs – Doctors of Philosophy. Science is a Melba Ketchum of the philosophy based not on opinion or subjective USA and Dr. Bryan Sykes judgment or orders from a higher authority or of Great Britain. This in from God, but on evidence. I felt as though itself is a major develop- my profession was unfairly accused by the ment, indicating that community of cryptozoologists.” hominology is making Number one, Sykes does not differentiate progress and entering a cryptozoology and hominology. It’s like not promising stage. These notes are occasioned differentiate paleontology and paleo- by Sykes’ book The Nature of the Beast anthropology. Mammoth fossils are studied (London: Coronet, 2015), in which the author by paleontologists, Neanderthal and explains why he became engaged in Gigantopithecus fossils by paleoanthropolog- cryptozoology-hominology and tells of his ists. On p. 163 the author defines crypto- investigations. His very clear explanation of zoology: ‘The search for animals whose the aim and method of his work deserves great existence is not proven’. While in a Press appreciation from hominologists, providing Release he presents his grand Project to which excellent lessons in genetics relative to the book is devoted in this way: SCIENTISTS hominology. I see this as the main asset of the SEARCH FOR YETI DNA. The Oxford- book. Regrettably, being a novice in this field, Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project (p. 162). Dr. Sykes presents a wrong picture of In cryptozoology, by his definition, we are hominology’s scientific status and situation, after ‘animals whose existence is not proven.’ and it is on this aspect of the book that I intend But in his Project he is in search of evidence to focus attention in my initial notes on the for hominids whose existence is not proven book. yet to the scientific community (my addition). On p. 10 we read the following: “In almost When Sykes deals with presumed evidence for every book written by cryptozoologists, as the existence of unproven and unidentified those who study creatures ‘unknown to hominids he works within hominology, and science’ are called, I encountered the when he attempts to discover new species of complaint that they had been ‘rejected by bear in Nepal he is engaged in cryptozoology. science.’ As a scientist, I knew very well that As a matter of fact, the book deals mainly science does not reject anything out of hand. with unidentified hominids, not unidentified Science is a way of trying to make sense of bears. The father of cryptozoology is Bernard the world that relies on evidence. As such Heuvelmans, the father of hominology is © RHI BRYAN SYKES 76 Boris Porshnev. He wrote of the “emerging be very concerned about how my interest in science of relict hominoids” in 1963. In 1972, the sasquatch, if made public, would affect my after his passing, I coined and started using the reputation as a wildlife biologist, and hence term hominology. my employ-ability. When, after almost The discrepancy of non-distinguishing twenty-five years of research, I had reviewed between cryptozoology and hominology is felt enough evidence to be certain about the throughout the book, as, for example, in this existence of the sasquatch, I finally came “out sentence: “Cryptozoology is not short of good of the closet” with my interest in this species” stories, but none beats the case of the (John Bindernagel, North America’s Great Pangboche Finger” (p. 191). The Pangboche Ape: the Sasquatch, 1998, p. 20). In 2010, the Hand is clearly a hominid (human) hand, an following is said in the Foreword of his book object of anthropology, not zoology, so none The Discovery of the Sasquatch: “Scientists of cryptozoology either. As a result, as soon as who publicly express an interest in the first DNA testing showed that the Pangboche sasquatch phenomenon risk doing serious Finger was ‘human’ (what else could it be?), it damage to their reputations, and the was rejected as evidence and not subjected to institutions that employ them may frown upon deeper analysis. Hominology has been even indirect associations with the subject.” suffering all along from this deplorable tactic Is this not in contradiction with what Dr. of geneticists who are ignorant of our science. Sykes says about our situation in relation to At this stage, the similarity between science? And why did he feel as though his cryptozoology and hominology, like between “profession was being unfairly accused?” Not paleontology and paleoanthropology, is in clear at all. On the contrary, his interest in methodology of investigation, in the sources hominology and wish to help and contribute of evidence, such as history, folklore, are highly welcome. But to be really helpful testimonials, sightings, footprints, etc. and fruitful he has to realize that he is still a Hominology is still at a cryptoanthropological student in our field, not a professor; in other stage of development and this what makes it words, still bound to do a lot of home work. confused with cryptozoology. But the That his efforts in this respect have not been difference is clear and I hope to mention its sufficient so far is evident from the very further significance later. subtitle of the book: The first scientific Number two, the author uses the term evidence on the survival of apemen into science in the above cited passage in a strange modern times. There is discrepancy here, too. way, as if anyone of our community accused If the statement is true, this means Dr. Sykes science of misbehavior. I’ve never read that. has proved the existence of relict hominids. Complaint is not against science, but But there is no such claim on his part in the scientists, the scientific community, or, more book. So far Sykes is not even convinced the to the point, against the SCIENTIFIC apemen really exist! Then what about the title ESTABLISHMENT. Evidence of its press- of the volume – The Nature of the Beast? ures, bans, rejections and misbehavior is Non-existent beasts can’t but be devoid of galore and duly documented in the homin- nature. ological literature. In Russia, this concerns the The heading of Chapter 14 is “Good careers of, among others, such researchers as Science, Bad Science.” This true and proper Boris Porshnev, Dmitri Bayanov, Igor distinction is useful for our theme. But Burtsev; in the US, Grover Krantz, Jeff immeasurably more proper and even crucial Meldrum; in Canada, John Bindernagel. Said for us are the terms normal science and the latter in 1998: “In my own case I used to revolutionary science, as set out by Thomas THE NATURE OF THE BEAST 77 Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Revolutions, 1962. The greatest scientific The proof is in the oft quoted words of John revolution occurred when scientists Napier: “But if any one of them is real then as recognized that the Earth moves and goes scientists we have a lot to explain. Among around the Sun. Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, other things we shall have to re-write the story Kepler and others were its first revolutionary of human evolution. We shall have to accept scientists. It was a revolution in astronomy, in that Homo sapiens is not the one and only philosophy, in the worldview. Overcoming living product of the hominid line, and we great resistance and suffering casualties, the shall have to admit that there are still major revolution won and astronomy today is a mysteries to be solved in a world we thought normal science. Thus, sciences can turn from we knew so well” (In his book Bigfoot: The normal to revolutionary and vice versa. Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, A minor revolution in astronomy occurred in 1973). the 18th century when scientists learned, to Time to quote Thomas Kuhn: “Normal their greatest surprise, that heaven is capable science, the activity in which most scientists of “dropping” stones onto earth. This had been inevitably spend almost all their time, is known to non-scientists throughout history but predicted on the assumption that the scientific scientists viewed the notion as superstition. community knows what the world is like. (…) This is the most analogous case to what we Normal science, for example, often suppresses experience in hominology (see my article “A fundamental novelties because they are Hominologist’s View from Moscow, USSR” necessarily subversive of its basic commit- in The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch, 1977). ments.” We understand, of course, that, saying Meteoritics was a revolutionary science then normal science is often suppressive, Kuhn and is a normal science today. means normal scientists, not science. He The greatest scientific revolution after the means the scientific community which is Copernican was the Darwinian, since it acting on the assumption that it knows “what concerned the origin of man, being also a the world is like.” revolution in philosophy and the worldview. In their turn paleoanthropologists, engaged But unlike the Copernican revolution, the in their normal science, are acting on the Darwinian has not won yet! And this is tragic idiotic assumption that all pre-sapiens for mankind. To give you just one example, hominids died out at the time shown by the Islamic fundamentalism, extremism and last fossil findings, quietly ignoring the terrorism would have been impossible if all famous coelacanth case. They are quietly young people on earth knew the evolutionary ignoring the fact that the central term of origin of man.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Origins the Ape-Ancestry Myth
    Human Origins the ape-ancestry myth David Pratt February 2004 Part 1 of 3 Contents (Part 1) 1. Darwinian claims and controversies 2. Genetic tales: Adam and Eve (Part 2) 3. Suppressed evidence of human antiquity 4. Giants and wildmen (Part3) 5. Anatomy and origins 6. Theosophy: fallen angels, fallen apes 1. Darwinian claims and controversies According to mainstream science, humans are evolved apes who, as a result of random genetic mutations and environmental pressures, happened to acquire the unique power of selfconsciousness. However, the loud publicity and slick propaganda for the ape-ancestry theory cannot alter the fact that the evidence is scanty and contradictory and open to other interpretations. Anthropologist Richard Leakey has said that ‘If someone went to the trouble of collecting together in one room all the fossil remains so far discovered of our ancestors (and their biological relatives) who lived, say, between five and one million years ago, he would need only a couple of large trestle tables on which to spread them out.’1 Most hominid fossils are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls but, as palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould once said, ‘they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling’.2 Beliefs, expectations, and prejudices inevitably play a role in the interpretation of fossils, as do personal rivalries and the desire for fame. More than one palaeoanthropologist has become famous overnight by announcing sensational and extravagant claims after finding some fragmentary remains of a creature he or she believes to be related to man’s origin. But such claims have a habit of being undermined or invalidated by further research and discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wildman of China: the Search for the Yeren
    SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS Number 309 March, 2021 The Wildman of China: The Search for the Yeren by Oliver D. Smith Victor H. Mair, Editor Sino-Platonic Papers Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 USA [email protected] www.sino-platonic.org SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS FOUNDED 1986 Editor-in-Chief VICTOR H. MAIR Associate Editors PAULA ROBERTS MARK SWOFFORD ISSN 2157-9679 (print) 2157-9687 (online) SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS is an occasional series dedicated to making available to specialists and the interested public the results of research that, because of its unconventional or controversial nature, might otherwise go unpublished. The editor-in-chief actively encourages younger, not yet well established scholars and independent authors to submit manuscripts for consideration. Contributions in any of the major scholarly languages of the world, including romanized modern standard Mandarin and Japanese, are acceptable. In special circumstances, papers written in one of the Sinitic topolects (fangyan) may be considered for publication. Although the chief focus of Sino-Platonic Papers is on the intercultural relations of China with other peoples, challenging and creative studies on a wide variety of philological subjects will be entertained. This series is not the place for safe, sober, and stodgy presentations. Sino-Platonic Papers prefers lively work that, while taking reasonable risks to advance the field, capitalizes on brilliant new insights into the development of civilization. Submissions are regularly sent out for peer review, and extensive editorial suggestions for revision may be offered. Sino-Platonic Papers emphasizes substance over form. We do, however, strongly recommend that prospective authors consult our style guidelines at www.sino-platonic.org/stylesheet.doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Grover S. Krantz to Enter Portiol Retirement
    D epa rtm en t of A nth rop o Io gy Spring 1998 GroverS. Krantz to Enter Portiol Retirement by DonaldTyler Chair,Department of Anthropology University of Idaho ProfessorGrover lkantzis retiringfromWSU after origins of modernhumans have become major confribu- 30 yearsof serviceas a physicalanthropologist for the tions to the field and arewidely acceptedin introductory Departmentof Anthropology. Professor[kantz is one and advancedanthropological textbooks. of the world's leadingauthorities on the evolutionof hom- In the popularpress Krantz is bestknown for his 25- inoids.He receivedhis B.A. and M.A. in anthropology year personal,unfunded study of Sasquatch(Bigfoot). from the University of Califomia, Berkeleyand Ph.D. Although his approachto the study of Sasquatchhas al- in anthropologyfrom the University of Minnesota. He waysfollowed the methodsof scienceit was occasional- haswritten 10 bookson suchdiverse topics such as hu- ly professionallyunpopular. Recently he and this author man races,human evolution, Sasquatch, the geographi- (Ph.D.,WSU 1986)have also gained much attentionwith cal developmentofEuropean languages,and has even theirpioneeringwork describingpreviously unkown hom- written a novel called Only a Dog, whichis the story of inids from Indonesia.These fossils have changedhow his life with an hish Wolftround. He hasover 60 refer- anthropologyviews the earliestHomo erectus. eedarticles to his credit.Many of the hypotheseshe in- For the foreseeablefuture Dr. Krantz plans to contin- troducedin these,including the conceptofpersistence
    [Show full text]
  • Bigfoot's Screen Test
    Bigfoot's Screen Test Recent analyses propose that the 1967 film of "Bigfoot" documents a large, feral nonhuman primate unknown to modern science. Known sources of measurement error and existing data on human locomotion suggest a more cautious conclusion. DAVID J. DAEGLING and DANIEL 0. SCHMITT f the varied sources of evidence invoked to support the existence of Bigfoot, none is more widely cited Othan the 1967 film of a large, hairy bipedal figure walking along the Bluff Creek drainage in northern California. Known as the Patterson-Gimlin film, this short motion picture (less than one minute running time) has gen- erated considerable controversy with respect to its authen- ticity. The film depicts a burly figure walking deliberately away from the cameraman. The footage is often blurry due to excessive camera movement. In the most famous frame, the film subject turns its head and shoulders toward the camera to peer at its pursuer. Details of the subject's phys- iognomy cannot be discerned. 2 0 M»y/June 1999 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Recently, three independent studies have presented argu- film is noi a Bigfoot; we simply wish to point out that recent ments suggesting thai fabricaiion of the film would have irumpetings in cyberspace about the film's authenticity may been unlikely or impossible given the technology of the day. noi enjoy a solid empirical foundation.' The implication, therefore, is that giant, bipedal primates havr inhabited wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest in Analyzing the Claims recent times, yet have remained undiscovered by wildlife biologists and unrecognized among the mainstream scientific It is alleged that the film subject left tracks on the Bluff Creek community.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews
    142 MILLER ET AL. Vol. 84 BOOK REVIEW Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Jour- education, and for providing reliable in- nal of the International Society of Crypto- formation to appropriate authorities." zoology, edited by J. Richard Greenwell. Do we really need another journal? Membership at $25/year is available from Apparently so, for I cannot imagine estab- Secretary-Treasurer of ISC, Box 43070, lished scientific journals such as Copeia, Tucson, Arizona 85733. Includes Crypto- Journal of Mammalogy or Science publishing zoology annually and The ISC Newsletter articles based on hearsay and negative re- quarterly. sults as does volume one of Cryptozoology. The officers and board of directors of The rear cover of volume one states, the new society contain names familiar "The International Society of Cryptozool- to readers of fringe zoology. Bernard ogy serves as a focal point for the investiga- Heuvelmans, French author of On the Track tion, analysis, publication, and discussion of Unknown Animals, is president, and Roy of all matters related to animals of unex- Mackal of Loch Ness fame is vice presi- pected form or size, or unexpected occur- dent. Of the 12 board members, 6 are rence in time or space. The Society also overseas and many have substantial scien- serves as a forum for public discussion and tific reputations such as Grover Krantz, OhioJ. Sci. BOOK REVIEW 143 anthropologist and Bigfoot expert; George as a food source for this creature of un- Zug, herpetologist at the U.S. National known size, eating habits, and classifi- Museum, and Phillip Tobias, anatomist- cation; a task the authors admit is difficult.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Bigfoot? an Investigation of the Mill Creek 'Sasquatch Prints'
    Evidence for Bigfoot? An Investigation of the Mill Creek 'Sasquatch Prints' Some have called these footprints with dermal ridges authentic, but evidence to the contrary is abundant and mounting. Michael R. Dennett HE LEGEND of Sasquatch, the giant humanoid monster alleged to inhabit the Pacific Northwest, has taken an important new turn. A Tseemingly growing number of scientists and, for the first time, a respected magazine are accepting as valid evidence that indicates the creature exists. Newsweek (September 21, 1987) ran a dramatic article in its "Science" section about startling new proof of Bigfoot. The evidence, reported Newsweek, consisted of four sets of footprints that showed dermal ridges, the foot's equivalent of fingerprints. Forty fingerprint experts agreed they were authentic, the article said. The magazine quoted a skeptical anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley, as conceding that "it would be impossible to fake prints with dermal ridges." Plaster casts of the giant footprints, some 15 inches in length, have been collected by Grover Krantz, an anthropologist at Washington State University (WSU). Krantz, a longtime advocate of the existence of Bigfoot, claims that the casts show "detailed microscopic anatomy absolutely perfectly." The casts, first reported by Krantz in 1982, are indeed impressive. Anthropologist Robert Meier, of Indiana University, who had originally declined even to look at the impressions, revised his opinion after viewing them at a dermatoglyphics convention. In a recent paper Professor Meier wrote: "I think [Krantz] should be commended for his thorough and dedicated investigation into the Sas- quatch matter, and generally he has offered cautious interpretations of the Michael R.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Mill Creek 'BIGFOOT FOOTPRINTS'
    the Skeptical Inquirer Vol 13, No. 3 / Spring 1989 $6 Analyzing the Mill Creek 'BIGFOOT FOOTPRINTS' Levitation: Lore, Physics & Fantasy • Patent Myth • Shroud Lessons CSICOP Chicago Conference • Skepticism as Puzzle Solving Biology Teachers' Beliefs • More on MJ-12 Published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Editor Kendrick Frazier. Editorial Board James E. Alcock, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, James Randi. Consulting Editors Isaac Asimov, William Sims Bainbridge, John R. Cole, Kenneth L. Feder, C. E. M. Hansel, E. C. Krupp, David F. Marks, Andrew Neher, James E. Oberg, Robert Sheaffer. Steven N. Shore. Managing Editor Doris Hawley Doyle. Public Relations Director Barry Karr. Business Manager Mary Rose Hays. Assistant Editor Andrea Szalanski. Production Lisa Mergler. Chief Data Officer Richard Seymour. Computer Assistant Michael Cione. Typesetting Paul E. Loynes. Audio Technician Vance Vigrass. Librarian, Ranjit Sandhu. Staff Crystal Foils, Leland Harrington, Raymond Harrington, Lynda Harwood, Laura Muench, Alfreda Pidgeon, Kathy Reeves. Cartoonist Rob Pudim. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Paul Kurtz, Chairman; philosopher, State University of New York at Buffalo. Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director. Mark Plummer, Executive Director. Fellows of the Committee James E. Alcock, psychologist, York Univ., Toronto; Eduardo Amaldi, physicist. University of Rome, Italy. Isaac Asimov, biochemist, author; Irving Biederman, psychologist. University of Minnesota; Susan Blackmore, psycholo­ gist. Brain Perception Laboratory, University of Bristol, England; Mario Bunge, philosopher, McGill University; Bette Chambers, A.H.A.; John R.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Sources and Monster Historiography
    Notes on Sources and Monster Historiography Those who searched for manlike monsters in the twentieth century— not as metaphors, but as flesh and blood organisms—have gone largely overlooked by academic historians of science. This field, as with cryp- tozoology in general, became the domain of independent amateur chroniclers producing a range of works of varying quality.1 An excel- lent explanation of what cryptozoology attempts to do is found in Chad Arment’s Cryptozoology: Science and Speculation.2 Since the 1960s, scholarly works on anomalous primates, and cryptids in gen- eral, look to place them in the realm of legend and myth: creations of the human mind rather than of evolution.3 These works tend to fall under what Jeffrey Cohen called “monster theory.”4 Works taking an empirical, physical anthropology approach include Gill, Meldrum, and Bindernagel.5 Recent writings have begun to address the lives of the monster hunters, but follow the tradition of focusing on the folkloric and pop culture nature of Bigfoot rather than on the natural history element, and not on the place of cryptozoology in the context of the history of science. This category tends to lean to the exposé or dismissive side.6 Of use to the discussion of monsters in general are scholarly works that attempt to put studies of human monsters into the history of biological systemization and classification.7 A number of methodological issues need to be addressed in the historiography of anomalous primate studies. There are papers col- lections of leading researchers. Grover Krantz, Bernard Heuvelmans, and Ivan Sanderson have accessible materials, as do Carleton Coon and George Agogino.
    [Show full text]
  • Moscon Vii John Varley, Rick Stern­ Bach, Richard Wright, Grover Krantz
    i l MOSCON VII JOHN VARLEY, RICK STERN­ BACH, RICHARD WRIGHT, GROVER KRANTZ Table of Conten·ts: Page Chairman's Message ••.••...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 Voice of the Vice Chair •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 Hotel Map •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2 GUESTS OF -HONOR John Varley -­ biography by B cky Bryant ••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 Rick Sternbach biography b y Asenet h Hammond ••••••••••••••••• 3 Richard Wright biography by Judy Suryan ••••••••••••••••••••• 4 Dr. Grover Krantz autobiography by Grover Krantz, Ph.D •••••• 5 SPECIAL GUESTS Verna Smith Trestrail -- bio by Beth Finkbiner ••••••••••••••••• 6 John Dalmas -- autobiography by John Dalmas •••••••••••••••••••• 6 A.J. Budrys -- biography by Mike Finkbiner ••••••••••••••••••••• 7 Michael and Lynne .Anne Goodwin -- autobio by Goodwins •••••••••• 7 F.M. Busby -- biography.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••8 Wi 11 i am R • Warren , Jr • - - biography • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8 SPECIAL FEATURES Beauty, Gender, and Pretense -- by George Barr ••••••••••••••••• 9 The MosCon Towel Strikes Again •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 Swecon '85 Report -- by ill Johns •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 DEPARTMENTS Programming ••••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 MosCon Momentoes, Hospitality ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 Be Kind to the Hotel •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 Operations •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 16 Gophers and Security, Art Show and
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology
    The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 1:72-80 (2012) Book Review Searching For Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology. By Brian Regal. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2011. 249 pp. ISBN-978-0-230-11147-9. $85.00 (hardcover). Searching for Sasquatch is Bigfoot, the Minnesota Iceman, the Patterson- an important, entertaining, Gimlin film, the Bossburg tracks – where the but at times confusing new two groups frequently engaged each other. book by Brian Regal, an The “traditional heroic narrative of monster Associate Professor of the hunting,” he says, “situates mainstream History of Science at Kean scientists (the eggheads) as the villains University. The book rejecting the existence of anomalous primates essentially deals with the and cryptozoology as something unworthy of hunt for Sasquatch – more study. The narrative gives a privileged place specifically, the hunters of Sasquatch, to untrained, but passionate amateur scientists and amateurs alike – beginning in naturalists (the crackpots) who soldier on the late 1940s. As such, it joins the ranks to against great odds, including the unwarranted some degree of Robert Michael Pyle’s obstinacy of the mainstream against bringing elegantly written and surpassingly wise Where knowledge of these creatures to light.” He Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the Dark Divide further plots the basic template of the (1995) and Joshua Blu Buhs’s Bigfoot: The frequently hostile dialogue between the two Life and Times of a Legend (2009) as studies camps, with the egghead/academics of those seeking to find the creature. Through dismissing the claims of the crackpot the use of books, archival materials, private naturalists as scientifically unacceptable, and correspondences, and other research sources, the crackpot/naturalists firing back that the Regal is able to provide vivid and insightful egghead/academics are all armchair skeptics depictions of many of the major figures who’ve not bothered to even examine the involved in the hunt for Bigfoot and he raises evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Through the Trees: an Anthropologist, a Museum, and the Sasquatch
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2018 Looking Through the Trees: An Anthropologist, a Museum, and the Sasquatch Carissa Kepner University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Anthropology Commons, and the Museum Studies Commons Recommended Citation Kepner, Carissa, "Looking Through the Trees: An Anthropologist, a Museum, and the Sasquatch" (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1455. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1455 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Looking Through the Trees: An Anthropologist, a Museum, and the Sasquatch _______________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Arts and Humanities University of Denver _______________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts ________________________________ by Carissa Kepner June 2018 Advisor: Dr. Christina Kreps ©Copyright by Carissa Kepner 2018 All Rights Reserved Author: Carissa Kepner Title: Looking Through the Trees: An Anthropologist, a Museum, and the Sasquatch Advisor: Dr. Christina Kreps Degree Date: June 2018 Abstract The Sasquatch is incredibly popular in American society. This project explores the impact of the Sasquatch phenomenon on those that live in and visit Bailey, Colorado. It focuses on how the Sasquatch Outpost museum contributes to this impact, especially through outdoor activities, visiting the museum, visiting the Outpost general store, and the sharing of sighting stories.
    [Show full text]
  • Guest Editorial the Patterson-Gimlin Film in Light of the Linnaeus and Porshnev Teachings
    The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 7:112-116 (2018) Guest Editorial The Patterson-Gimlin Film in Light of the Linnaeus and Porshnev Teachings: A Report Presented on the Occasion of the Film’s 50th Anniversary Dmitri Bayanov * State Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia 117292 Fifty years ago, on October 20, 1967, in Bluff tology, and consequently a paradigm shift in Creek, northern California, Roger Patterson, anthropology. helped by his friend and assistant Robert In this connection Porshnev recognized the (Bob) Gimlin, captured on film a female reality of the so-called “snowmen.” On his specimen of the higher bipedal primates initiative, the Soviet Academy of Sciences set known in North America as Bigfoot or up a special commission to study the sasquatch. Up until now, according to the snowman question. During two years of its science of anthropology, Homo sapiens is the existence the Snowman Commission, using only representative of the bipedal primates on ancient, medieval and modern sources of earth. The others are nonexistent because, information, gathered and published a lot of according to paleoanthropology, man’s material pertaining to the existence of bipedal closest and most recent evolutionary relatives primate relicts. died out tens of thousands of years ago. Such Some time later, Porshnev’s ideas were is the scientific paradigm today. For this strongly attacked by influential conservative reason American scientists rejected the film scientists, who accused him of creating and out of hand, largely without studying it, spreading pseudoscience. The Snowman calling it a fabrication showing a man dressed Commission was disbanded. When publica- for deception in a special costume imitating tion of the book On the Beginning of Human natural hairiness – “a man in a fur suit.” History, the main work of his life, was In 1971, sasquatch hunter René Dahinden interrupted and cancelled, Boris Porshnev visited Moscow and handed over to us, suddenly died of a heart attack in 1972.
    [Show full text]