A book, “Loch Ness Monsters and Raining Frogs”, on sale in the UK, discovered by me only days ago (though first published in 2007). Collection of essays about assorted perplexing mysteries, including Bigfoot. Author of same, a gentleman called Albert Jack, who has hitherto come to (fairly restricted) fame for compiling books about how various English-language locutions / clichés / metaphors came to be. This book of his is sub-titled “The World’s Most Puzzling Mysteries Solved”. It takes in thirty-odd of such -- most of them not in the “cryptozoology” ballpark. Mr. Jack’s general “take” is – not 100%, and there are some which he admits to failing to solve -- that the answer to mysteries is in the humdrum / everyday sphere.

In his eighteen-page article on Bigfoot (plus a brief nod in the direction of the Himalayan Yeti), Mr. Jack makes quite impressively broad inclusion of “players and themes” on the scene. There’s Ape Canyon; the Ostman story; J.W. Burns’s coining the name “Sasquatch”; the 1958 Bluff Creek happenings; the Ray Wallace posthumous “revelations”; the PGF and resulting controversies, with quotes from “pro” and “con” people; the Bossburg tracks; the Coy / Carter Farm business (briefly); various organisations related to the interest – BFRO, TBRC, GCBRO, COBR (BFF doesn’t get a mention); John Green and Grover Krantz.

Despite the generous coverage, the author’s mental processes as the article develops, seem not ice-cold-logical. While he apparently acknowledges the creature’s possible existence – “Such a large number of sightings does suggest that Bigfoot, or a relative of his, could well be out there; [ paraphrasing Janet Bord] I refuse to believe that so many people could be lying” – and, five points by Rick Noll cited, in a respectful-enough way, supporting Bigfoot’s being a flesh-and-blood animal for whose existence we have so far next to no hard evidence -- it seems clear that Mr. Jack harbours a strong gut-feeling that the whole “Bigfoot thing” is ludicrous – too much so, to possibly have anything factual about it. It would seem from his words, that he mostly goes with this gut-feeling, and is as a matter of course, readier to accept and pass on, assertions from debunkers of all kinds, than opposing ditto – or reasoned argument – from Bigfoot proponents. (Much more by volume in his eighteen pages, of the former, than the latter.) His general tone throughout the article is – mildly and whimsically, rather than nastily – derisive towards the notion that the creature may exist. Rigorous logical and scientific thinking, is clearly not his strong suit: he seems cued by “gut” rather than “head”. He does furnish his own input, of a kind, on the PGF: “Having now made my own detailed study of the film, [via] ultra-slow, frame-by-frame-pausing technology [furnished by] the DVD player in my front room, I can now add to the debate. To my albeit untrained eye, the creature looks suspiciously like a man in a monkey suit on his way to a fancy-dress party.” It would be interesting to see how – or whether – he could defend this assertion, against “pro” folks learned about anatomy / gait / “creature suits”.

Mr. Jack would seem to be no intellectual giant – or if he is, plainly he saves it for things which he sees as more important than “Bigfootery”. One would find it a bit regrettable that he appears to see no need to try for detachment, but gives somewhat free rein to his preconceived feeling that the entire thing is silly. It has to be suspected that readers new to this subject who discover it in this book – and basically like what the author has to say – will be more likely to take his cue and reckon: “it’s all rubbish” ; than to reckon: “something is going on, which needs explaining”. One can reflect that it’s a mercy that the book was published, before the late-2008 “Vanity Fair” article about the Texas Bigfoot Conference, came out…

hey fred welcome bigfoot forums this book sounds wonderful

Umm, maybe -- as mentioned, most topics covered in the book are not cryptozoological; and going by its content -- as regards the author, Einstein he certainly ain't.

Books like this tend to fall into the category of desultory 'potboilers'; designed to keep the writer in pocket change until a better idea for a better book comes along. It's a famous ploy with a long standing 'just-keep-cranking-'em-out' tradition. The unfortunate consequence of such tree-wasters is that the uninformed or naive reader is likely to take the thing as gospel, if for no better reason than its being in print.

I ran into someone the other day who knew something about a few of the PGF man-in-a-suit hoax arguments, but nothing of the various frame-by-frame scientific evaluations of the film done over the years. What is missing in both examples is a balanced approach which gives the reader an opportunity to weigh the pros and the cons before making a tentative decision. That's where our very own Bigfoot Forum comes in very handy and I, for one, and very glad of its existence.
Dudlow

It's plain that this gentleman Mr. Jack is indeed in the business of cranking out ...stuff...to pay the bills. His "origins of expressions" thing was a fine low-effort racket along those lines, for as long as he could sustain it.

As mentioned, in his "mysteries" book he mostly takes the debunking and (fairly gentle) mockery path. He seems especially that way inclined, about cryptozoological topics -- the only other subject overtly thus which he deals with, is the Loch Ness Monster: certainly does a brisk, if superficial, hatchet job on that one (his "Nessie" essay only about half the length of his "Bigfoot" one). One has to wonder whether he consciously calculated that strong scepticism, and mickey-taking, would probably attract more readers, than giving a fair deal to the possibility that truly strange things might be going on. If so, then lowish marks for honesty...