Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Flawed Guide to Bigfoot
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Media > News & Magazine Articles
tugboatwa
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-01/bigfoot.html
QUOTE
The Flawed Guide to Bigfoot

Benjamin Radford

The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide
By Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe
Avon Books, New York. 1999.
ISBN 0-380-80263-5
207 pp. Softcover, $12.50.

Field Guide to Bigfoot The Field Guide to Bigfoot is prefaced with a quote by George Bernard Shaw: "All great truths begin as blasphemies." The implication, of course, is that scientists and others regard claims of the existence of Bigfoot as heresy, and that the truth will out. But, as Robert Park of the American Physical Society wrote recently (in a similar context), "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."

The guide is an odd book indeed. Although purporting to be a field guide, it is really more of an illustrated catalogue of anecdotes of encounters with mysterious primates. The authors have created a classification system encompassing about fifty reports and sightings. They have grouped them into nine categories: Neo-Giant, True Giant, Marked Hominid, Neandertaloid, Erectus Hominid, Proto-Pygmy, Unknown Pongid, Giant Monkey, and Merbeing.

The entries are largely culled from previous books on cryptozoology, with few original sources cited. In nearly every entry, not enough details are given to judge the credibility of the account. Coleman and Huyghe make much of the fact that native peoples have various words for wildmen and other elusive, possibly mythical creatures. But just because a creature has a name does not imply that it actually exists: dragons, pixies, elves, and leprechauns can be described, drawn, and classified too.

Interestingly, the book's premise is at variance with longtime Bigfoot researcher Grover Krantz, who, as the authors admit on page 10, does not see "any compelling evidence for more than one type of hairy biped" and finds "no reason to think it has anywhere near a worldwide distribution."

The creatures Coleman and Huyghe catalogue have between three and five toes, and fail to account for alleged Bigfoot prints that show two and six toes. They apparently ignored evidence that didn't fit their categories. Or perhaps they assumed all tracks showing two or six toes are hoaxes. If so, by what criterion? Why are three- or four-toed primate footprints any more credible than two- or six-toed ones?

Early in the book, the authors decry a "lumping problem," that is, that myriad sightings are collected together under homogenous names such as "Bigfoot" or "Yeti." This, they say, is a problem because it "hides a larger truth, lumps considerable differences, and just plain confuses the picture."

There is indeed a lumping problem that confuses the picture, but that's not it. The problem is that the authors group eyewitness accounts, folklore, legend, footprint finds, and depictions in native art together as if all have equal weight and credibility. Sources for the field guide include an alarming number of third-hand sources, stories by young children, unnamed, long-dead eyewitnesses, and even the English poet who wrote Beowulf.

Yes, The Field Guide to Bigfoot includes Beowulf, a thousand-year-old poem, as a credible source for an account of an actual mystery primate that may be alive today. For those a little shaky on early English literature, the poem tells the story of the Danish king Beowulf who slew an ugly, hairy giant named Grendel. On your next trip to Denmark, be sure to take this guide so if you see Grendel you'll correctly identify it as a member of the True Giant class!

Even the infamous Minnesota Iceman, a fair exhibit shown in the late 1960s and claimed to be a frozen Bigfoot, appears in the book. It's touted as a real creature, despite strong evidence that it was simply a rubber creature designed by a top Disney model-maker. As Jon Beckjord, director of Project Bigfoot, wrote in the Summer 1982 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, "I'd like to point out that nobody who is involved in Sasquatch investigations has ever felt that this frozen dummy was a Bigfoot. . . ." That doesn't stop Coleman and Huyghe, who quote one cryptozoologist's bizarre theory that "it was a Neandertal killed in Vietnam during the war and smuggled into the United States in a 'body bag.'"

The best thing about the book is the illustrations by Harry Trumbore. He does an admirable job of coming up with slight variations on large, hairy bipeds. Accuracy doesn't seem to be a high priority; with one creature, the Tano Giant (p.98), the account clearly states the creature had no thumbs. That apparently didn't sit well with the authors, who note, "perhaps its thumb was simply small relative to the rest of its hand," and depict the creature with thumbs anyway.

Along with the individual entries, maps depict the range of each class of creature. My personal favorite is the Merbeing ("water creature") map. According to it, these aquatic creatures roam no less than five deserts, including the Atacama (in Peru), the Mojave (U.S.), the Great Sandy (Australia), and the Sonoran (Mexico).

Over a dozen accounts claim that the creatures were killed. Yet no bones, skeletons, or preserved bodies exist today. This elicits visions of hunters saying to themselves, "Wow! We killed a wild, man-like creature! I've never seen anything like it before! Let's throw it away!"

It's clear that mystery mongering is at work here. In several places, the eyewitnesses themselves admit that it's possible they misidentified an ordinary animal, such as a bear, spider monkey, or baboon. But as long as there's a hint of doubt, Coleman and Huyghe are happy to claim it a mystery, treat it like a real animal, and lump it in with accounts from folklore and poems.

The authors have also written other entries in this peculiar field guide series, including guides to extraterrestrials, UFOs, and ghosts. I suspect the same lax scholarship evident here bedevils those as well.
peregrine
I'm sure Radford found secret pleasure in citing EB as a credible source. :laugh:

However, what I would find really pathetic is if nobody from the "sasquatch research community" (whoever that includes) ever wrote a comparably critical review of that particular Coleman book. Maybe such reviews exist. I don't know of anyone who thinks "The Field Guide" is worth its weight in confetti.
RB
Yeah... the scary-looking bird speaks words of wisdom... again...

But... the book does a fine job of propping up the corner of my wobbly toilet however... :eek3dance:
bipto
Why is it the 'skeptics' always go for the low hanging fruit?
jimf
QUOTE(peregrine @ Aug 7 2006, 08:14 PM) *
I'm sure Radford found secret pleasure in citing EB as a credible source. :laugh:

However, what I would find really pathetic is if nobody from the "sasquatch research community" (whoever that includes) ever wrote a comparably critical review of that particular Coleman book. Maybe such reviews exist. I don't know of anyone who thinks "The Field Guide" is worth its weight in confetti.

It's not dealing with "the field guide " , but I am working on something similar. It'll be on the SRI website when its finished.
tube
Radford's review has been around for several years now, I wonder if it hasn't been posted here on Bigfoot Forums before.

By and large I'm in agreement with Radford's assessment of the book, as I finally got around to buying a copy a few months ago.

In a rebuttal to Radford's review, Coleman attacks Radford's choice of Minnesota Iceman authority:

QUOTE
Radford then goes after us for including the story of the "Minnesota
Iceman," saying that there is "strong evidence that it was simply a
rubber creature designed by a top Disney model-maker." In an
incredible leap, Radford elevates a jester to king, by using San
Francisco's former storefront Bigfoot & UFO Museum owner, bad-boy,
and class-clown EB as his Minnesota Iceman "expert."
EB has been arrested at, banned from, and thrown out of almost
every serious scientific Sasquatch and cryptozoology meeting he has
attended. EB even took to wearing an alien mask at one such
gathering in 1999. And this is the Skeptical Inquirer's expert
criticizing Vietnamese, French, Scottish, and American researchers
for investigating the Minnesota Iceman scientifically?


http://americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse...-skeptical.html

Indeed, this is a problem that those unfamiliar with the specifics of the issue have; one's credibility is lowered if you choose the wrong people as your "experts". I was able to speak to Radford briefly about the "Iceman" in Pocatello, and I could tell that it was an issue that was really not on his radar screen. While I run the risk of self aggrandizement here, I think you will find the skeptical analysis of the "Iceman" on the BFF thread here to be vastly more well thought out than anything the "class clown" ever came up with, particularly the photographic work done by Wolftrax.

The damning flaw of Coleman's book is his unbridled willingness to propose taxonomic classifications on the flimsiest of evidence. In some cases, like his "Merbeings", credulity is strained to the very breaking point.

When I read Coleman's book, a little voice keeps going off in my head that says; "Are you serious"?
tugboatwa
QUOTE(tube @ Aug 7 2006, 07:14 PM) *
Radford's review has been around for several years now, I wonder if it hasn't been posted here on Bigfoot Forums before.
Had I noticed the date of the review I would not have posted it. :icon_bang:
bipto
But if you hadn't, I never would have read it!
wolftrax
QUOTE(tube @ Aug 7 2006, 09:14 PM) *
Indeed, this is a problem that those unfamiliar with the specifics of the issue have; one's credibility is lowered if you choose the wrong people as your "experts". I was able to speak to Radford briefly about the "Iceman" in Pocatello, and I could tell that it was an issue that was really not on his radar screen. While I run the risk of self aggrandizement here, I think you will find the skeptical analysis of the "Iceman" on the BFF thread here to be vastly more well thought out than anything the "class clown" ever came up with, particularly the photographic work done by Wolftrax.


Thank you sir!
LAL
Don't forget, one of those photos was by Loren Coleman.
tugboatwa
QUOTE(tube @ Aug 7 2006, 07:14 PM) *
When I read Coleman's book, a little voice keeps going off in my head that says; "Are you serious"?
I couldn'y agree more!
LAL
I e-mailed him about a story on a website a poster cited. He e-mailed back that he never said anything like that to a reporter and did I believe everything I read on websites.

The story was on one of his websites.

Sometimes I think he isn't serious.
Skeptical Greg
QUOTE(tugboatwa @ Aug 7 2006, 11:20 PM) *
QUOTE(tube @ Aug 7 2006, 07:14 PM) *
Radford's review has been around for several years now, I wonder if it hasn't been posted here on Bigfoot Forums before.
Had I noticed the date of the review I would not have posted it. :icon_bang:



Glad you did ..

New sig material..

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted
by an unkind establishment, you must also be right." Robert Park



( Dr. ) Robert Park has a great WEB site..

http://www.bobpark.com/
peregrine
QUOTE(tube @ Aug 7 2006, 09:14 PM) *
Indeed, this is a problem that those unfamiliar with the specifics of the issue have; one's credibility is lowered if you choose the wrong people as your "experts".
Actually, I feel quite comfortable in referencing EB as an expert in crop circles.
Savage30L
QUOTE(tube @ Aug 7 2006, 10:14 PM) *
Radford's review has been around for several years now, I wonder if it hasn't been posted here on Bigfoot Forums before.

By and large I'm in agreement with Radford's assessment of the book, as I finally got around to buying a copy a few months ago.

In a rebuttal to Radford's review, Coleman attacks Radford's choice of Minnesota Iceman authority:

QUOTE
Radford then goes after us for including the story of the "Minnesota
Iceman," saying that there is "strong evidence that it was simply a
rubber creature designed by a top Disney model-maker." In an
incredible leap, Radford elevates a jester to king, by using San
Francisco's former storefront Bigfoot & UFO Museum owner, bad-boy,
and class-clown EB as his Minnesota Iceman "expert."
EB has been arrested at, banned from, and thrown out of almost
every serious scientific Sasquatch and cryptozoology meeting he has
attended. EB even took to wearing an alien mask at one such
gathering in 1999. And this is the Skeptical Inquirer's expert
criticizing Vietnamese, French, Scottish, and American researchers
for investigating the Minnesota Iceman scientifically?


http://americanbigfootsocietyclearinghouse...-skeptical.html

Indeed, this is a problem that those unfamiliar with the specifics of the issue have; one's credibility is lowered if you choose the wrong people as your "experts". I was able to speak to Radford briefly about the "Iceman" in Pocatello, and I could tell that it was an issue that was really not on his radar screen. While I run the risk of self aggrandizement here, I think you will find the skeptical analysis of the "Iceman" on the BFF thread here to be vastly more well thought out than anything the "class clown" ever came up with, particularly the photographic work done by Wolftrax.

The damning flaw of Coleman's book is his unbridled willingness to propose taxonomic classifications on the flimsiest of evidence. In some cases, like his "Merbeings", credulity is strained to the very breaking point.

When I read Coleman's book, a little voice keeps going off in my head that says; "Are you serious"?



I agree. Coleman's book reminds me of the medieval European texts that show fanciful drawings of "Africans" with one huge foot that they use as an umbrella, etc. The work clearly was not subjected to peer review, and such unbridled speculation serves only to discredit serious researchers.
TimMcmanus
I'd always assumed he was being tongue-in-cheek in the writing of that book.
RavenMadd
:new_whistle: :doh: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ it makes the world go round and it makes a happy sound!
Lyndon
QUOTE(TimMcmanus @ Aug 8 2006, 05:04 PM) *
I'd always assumed he was being tongue-in-cheek in the writing of that book.



That's what I always thought too. I couldn't belive that book was actually SERIOUS!! wacko.gif
GrandCherokee
QUOTE(TimMcmanus @ Aug 8 2006, 04:04 PM) *
I'd always assumed he was being tongue-in-cheek in the writing of that book.



I thought that was true of everything he has written. No crap! huh.gif

I am open to suggestions from anyone about a book of his that I must read for its accuracy and value. Seriously, I will go order it. I just never ever took the man seriously.
RayG
When I became interested in bigfoot at a much younger age, I took Loren quite seriously, as apparently, did bigfoot researchers like John Green and others. Though his 'out there' theories can't be compared to leaving binary messages like "WRAT DO YOU WALT FROM US" (the actual message as decoded), it became increasingly obvious that he believes in far too many things for which he has no proof whatsoever.

However, considering he labels himself a cryptozoologist, has a webpage and message forum with crypto content, considers bigfoot a crypto mystery, has written numerous crypto books about bigfoot and other cryptids, and this particular 207 page book contains an extensive bibliography and list of resources, it has always been my assumption he was being quite serious with his 'Field Guide'. I find nothing in the content of the book that indicates he's being sarcastic, witty, tongue-in-cheek, or engaging in tom-foolery.

In fact, sandwiched between the book dedication, and the table of contents, is the George Bernard Shaw quote -- "All great truths begin as blasphemies."

Did he set about to pen the great truth about bigfoot?

RayG
ken_uk
I think LC's Tom Slick book is pretty good, but, I'm now very wary of anything else of his, including even his cryptomundo blog thing... especially since the recent "maine mutant" (read dog!) coverage; "horns of the devil" (read dewclaws!) :new_lmaosmiley: Having said all that, I'd probably be tempted to check out this "field guide" of his... via the local library!

Ken
Smitty
Could someone direct me to some Iceman discussion threads here on BFF?

The search feature was a little broad.

Thanks,

Smitty

P.S.: The Iceman is one of the first of the bigfoot stories I read about as a kid. Be nice to review the current thinking.
RogerKni
QUOTE(Smitty @ Sep 7 2006, 03:51 PM) *
Could someone direct me to some Iceman discussion threads here on BFF?
The search feature was a little broad.

If BFF is to have lasting value, rather than just serve as a convenient place to chat, there ought to be a subforum containing Iceman threads--and similar subforums for many other specific topics. The Search feature IS too broad for research-helpfulness.

For now, click on "Advanced Search Help" to learn how to target queries more precisely. Invision's Search finally allows exclusionary serching, multi-keyword searching, etc.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.