Throughout North America, there is an enduring legend that describes a race of giant, hairy ape-men said to inhabit the remotest forests and mountains. Yet, could such things really exist? Ken Gerhard is a widely recognized cryptozoologist who has traveled the world searching for evidence of mysterious animals and he wrote this book: "The Essential Guide to Bigfoot." Let's talk about it.
According to the book's Amazon.com page: In this essential primer, Gerhard presents the most accurate and indispensable information that’s been gathered with regard to the Bigfoot phenomenon – the best evidence supporting its existence, consensus expert opinions up to this point, the most compelling encounters and really everything you need to know about the subject in order to become Sasquatch savvy. The reader will get answers to questions such as – Do they really exist? What are they? What do they look like? How many are there? Are they dangerous? Where are the remains? In addition, Gerhard discusses his own expeditions, findings and opinions. Finally, Ken makes an argument that there may be a distinct, pygmy version, which he refers to as ‘Littlefoot,’ and which may be connected to other worldwide man-beasts, including the Yeti. So, delve in and consider the reality of what a giant, unknown, manlike monster roaming the wilderness truly represents to us all.
First of all, this is not Gerhard's first book. he has written "A Menagerie of Mysterious Beasts: Encounters with Cryptid Creatures," "Encounters with Flying Humanoids: Mothman, Manbirds, Gargoyles & Other Winged Beasts," and "How to get Along With Bigfoot Attention Whores at Texas Bigfoot Conferences." Actually, the last one is a joke, but we are sure confident Gerhard could write that book since that's all he is surrounded by in Bigfoot.
We shared the land with all of them at different times over thousands of years since man appeared roughly 200,000 years ago. And now it's just us and the Homo Kardashians.
On pg. 53 Gerhard wrote:
Book review by Rictor Riolo.
Well we have a copy of the book, courtesy of Ken Gerhard, and have been writing down a few notes along my reading.
Well we have a copy of the book, courtesy of Ken Gerhard, and have been writing down a few notes along my reading.
First of all, this is not Gerhard's first book. he has written "A Menagerie of Mysterious Beasts: Encounters with Cryptid Creatures," "Encounters with Flying Humanoids: Mothman, Manbirds, Gargoyles & Other Winged Beasts," and "How to get Along With Bigfoot Attention Whores at Texas Bigfoot Conferences." Actually, the last one is a joke, but we are sure confident Gerhard could write that book since that's all he is surrounded by in Bigfoot.
Nonetheless, Gerhard's Bigfoot book is a quick and good read with 246 pages that lightly skim over the major stories that make up the history of Bigfoot. It's like the "Cliff Notes" for Sasquatch. That's not necessarily a good thing. Unless you're addicted to Adderall like Bigfoot hoaxer, Nathan Reo Garn.
Buy this book for a middle school-aged Bigfoot aficionado. That is the perfect reading level for this guide. Or for Bigfoot author, Scott Marlowe.
If you are serious about Bigfoot as I am who spends hours, loads of money, blood, sweat and tears on the subject, then let's dissect this book.
And before I go any further, the photos and drawings inside the book are really cool. But the majority of the pictures all include Ken Gerhard. Is the book about Bigfoot or is it about Ken Gerhard's photo ops out in the woods and with Bigfoot celebrities? This is something someone would expect from me since I'm the big attention whore. Take out the narcissism. You don't have to prove your validity to us as a researcher. This is supposed to be "The Essential Guide to Bigfoot," not your Instagram feed.
Buy this book for a middle school-aged Bigfoot aficionado. That is the perfect reading level for this guide. Or for Bigfoot author, Scott Marlowe.
If you are serious about Bigfoot as I am who spends hours, loads of money, blood, sweat and tears on the subject, then let's dissect this book.
And before I go any further, the photos and drawings inside the book are really cool. But the majority of the pictures all include Ken Gerhard. Is the book about Bigfoot or is it about Ken Gerhard's photo ops out in the woods and with Bigfoot celebrities? This is something someone would expect from me since I'm the big attention whore. Take out the narcissism. You don't have to prove your validity to us as a researcher. This is supposed to be "The Essential Guide to Bigfoot," not your Instagram feed.
Gerhard does quick, one paragraph attributes about Bigfoot which do the subject a little injustice. If you have a copy of the book, go to pg. 84 and 85 and see the one to two sentence descriptions for all the Bigfoot creatures that supposedly inhabit this continent.
The one topic Gerhard missed the boat on fleshing out was bigfoot allegedly having infrasound, which Gerhard mentions briefly. I think it could have been expanded a bit better since there is real science behind land animals using that as a form of communication and advantage over their prey. No examples of people experiencing this with Sasquatch. Instead he writes "numerous Bigfoot accounts mention that." So much for us being able to check his sources to verify.
He then does a quick paragraph on dogs and Bigfoot not getting along (pg. 40) and states "numerous accounts" (once again), but doesn't give us at least one.
If you are a skeptic, you're going to hate this book. Ken doesn't quote some of his sources (For example on pg. 22 he says Bigfoot databases talk about its smell. What databases?) and doesn't provide a "fair and balanced point of view" on controversial Bigfoot debates, like The Patterson Gimlin film. After all, why would he do that? Now before I go any further, as a storyteller Gerhard doesn't tell you that he gives the PG film a comprehensive look. On pg. 13 it appears he just skims over the PG film (like he does with everything else) and labels it controversial. Why is it controversial?
He doesn't mention the possible evidence against it being real and the admitted hoaxers involved, like Bob Heironimous. He doesn't flesh it out like it deserves. But then, finally on pg. 76 he gives it the meat and bones it deserves. As a reader, you will be quick to judge. You will think you're being spoon fed Bigfoot propaganda in the beginning of the book. Ken could have stated something like, "More of this "controversy" will be examined in Chapter 2." Nope. It's a structure issue I have with this book.
Bigfoot and Crypytozoology is Gerhard's bread and butter, and won't argue the case against Bigfoot being real. That would be like Dr. Jeff Meldrum (who Gerhard calls a Bigfoot expert on pg. 13) going to Bigfoot conferences and saying Bigfoot isn't real. Shooting yourself in the foot isn't good for business and won't sell him Bigfoot books. Nor would it for Ken Gerhard.
Gerhard states things as if they're fact in regards to the creature filmed by Roger Patterson. On pg. 27 Gerhard wrote:
"Based on Patty's discernible sagittal crest (peaked skull), the eminent primatologist Dr. John Napier once wrote that like gorillas, Bigfoot would use it's powerful jaws to chew exclusively on a diet of course vegetation."
Let's look at the beginning of that sentence here: "Based on Patty's discernible sagittal crest (peaked skull)."
There is no body to derive a fact like that from. It's all hypothesis. And the 1967 59 second film could be very well a brilliant hoax. It almost makes you as a reader with an IQ over 60 do a face palm with every page turn.
Unfortunately Ken Gerhard falls into the typical trap like TV Bigfoot personality Cliff Barackman and Dr. Jeff Meldrum both fall into. Cliff and Jeff both base all their conference presentations on the same Patterson Gimlin film being evidence of fact. The problem with this book is, everything these men and this author talk about could very well be based on a well made hoax. And there is no room for error. It's one-sided and appears to be foolish or someone with an agenda like Fox News.
On pg. 32 Ken also mentions the possible Bigfoot nests that have been found in Ohio that were:
"Impressive domed structures constructed out of branches, vines, weeds and tall grasses that were interwoven."
Question, why couldn't vagrants have done this? Homeless people? Why does it always have to be Bigfoot?
I sound like I am complaining a lot. Please, do not take this as an intentional negative review of the book. It's critical, yes, but the book does have its value. And with a creature that, for what science is concerned to be, NOT REAL, then you better have your ducks lined up in a row like the late Dr. Bindernagel did with his book, "The Discovery of Sasquatch." Instead, Gerhard does this.
On P. 38, Gerhard wrote:
"A respected colleague recently suggested that a huge, active animal like Bigfoot would spend all of it's waking hours seeking out food and would not waste its time putting something like a stick structure together."
Who is this respected colleague? Hoaxer Rick Dyer? Hoaxer MK Davis? Perhaps hoaxer Steve Isdahl? All three of those men are nefarious with hoaxing and not having any evidence to back up their claims. This is a gossip book about Bigfoot now? I thought it was "The Essential Guide to Bigfoot?" We are supposed to take your anonymous and vague source's word for it? Why? Where is the substance?
I may have offended Ken when I asked him what reading level is this book written for. It's not for the skeptical or educated, that's for sure. It's written from a completly biased point of view.
However, after sifting through the first chapter and banging my head against the wall, I come upon the end of Chapter 1 with his writing on "Hominid X" and this is the piece of gold as a Bigfoot reader and fan I was hoping to get.
Here is the section that warmed my cold, frozen heart:
Yet sadly, Gerhard only mentioned Homo Naledi, Homo Floresienses and us, Homo sapiens. But what about all the others? Denisovans? Homo Neanderthalensis? Homo Erectus? Homo Heidelbergensis? Homo Rudolfensis? Homo Habilis?
However, after sifting through the first chapter and banging my head against the wall, I come upon the end of Chapter 1 with his writing on "Hominid X" and this is the piece of gold as a Bigfoot reader and fan I was hoping to get.
Here is the section that warmed my cold, frozen heart:
The longer I am involved in Bigfoot research, the more I tend to think that if these creatures truly exist, they may very well belong to a species that is not yet represented in the fossil record. A 2011 study found that of a possible 8.7 million species on planet Earth, scientists have only described about 1.3 million thus far, or about fifteen percent. Similarly, paleontologists have stated that we may never be familiar with the vast majority of species that lived in the past. Physical remains, after all, require a remarkable amount of good fortune in order to be preserved for eons. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that we have not yet discovered any fossil evidence of the species that Sasquatch represents.
Still, with Gigantopithecus we've clearly established that the hominid line is capable of producing a species of true giants if conditions are favorable. In addition, there are two pivotal dynamics that are shifting in the field of paleoanthropology as new fossils are being unearthed. First, a diversification of the hominid line, which suggests that multiple types of manlike species coexisting was the norm for millions of years. Second, the timeline for hominids displaying primitive features keeps moving closer to the present day, as evidenced by the recent discoveries of Homo Floresiensis and Homo Naledi: two species that lived alongside humans a mere 50,000 to 250,000 years ago, respectively. The bottom line is that from a purely biological perspective, Sasquatch makes sense. Its described physical features and behaviors are wholly natural and fit perfectly within the paradigm of hominid evolution.Bingo. Something new to add to the mix of Bigfoot theories. Something that makes sense. He could write whole book based on this Pandora's Box argument of other hominids living side by side with us which could be the catalyst for Sasquatch.
Yet sadly, Gerhard only mentioned Homo Naledi, Homo Floresienses and us, Homo sapiens. But what about all the others? Denisovans? Homo Neanderthalensis? Homo Erectus? Homo Heidelbergensis? Homo Rudolfensis? Homo Habilis?
We shared the land with all of them at different times over thousands of years since man appeared roughly 200,000 years ago. And now it's just us and the Homo Kardashians.
On pg. 53 Gerhard wrote:
"The late investigator Scott McClean did an impressive job of digging up and distributing numerous old newspaper articles that mentioned Wildmen encounters."
That's it? No examples? Gerhard then follows that with "The Bauman Affair." Is Scott McClean responsible for giving us that story by President Roosevelt? I'm so confused. Maybe he should have said I would like to acknowledge the late Scott McClean for his hard work in regards to finding old Wildmen newspaper articles. Once again, it's a structure issue.
Chapter 2's winning segment was the fleshed out Patterson Gimlin film "controversy" section. Gerhard actually devotes seven pages to this and even mentions the ongoing work by The Bluff Creek Project.
Ken Gerhard likes to use the word "controversial" a little too much in describing something that deserves scrutiny. You could make this into a drinking game for every time he uses that "safe" word to describe something or someone that might not be legit.
For example. Paul Freeman on pg. 88. He's a self admitted hoaxer. That's not "controversial." That's calling a spade a spade when the confession is firsthand. Character and integrity are all we have in Bigfoot when all we have are stories and hoaxed footprints with alleged footage. And if a researcher fabricates footpints and admits it on camera, that's not controversial, is it Ken?
Chapter 3 is probably Gerhard's best chapter with a more thought out writing structure with the different stories of Bigfoot remains. But then he watered down the "kill versus no kill" divisive camps in Bigfoot and whether or not it should be captured or killed. Why even mention it if Gerhard is only going to give it two or three sentences like he did with the Skunk Ape?
In Chapter Four: "Bigfoot Sociology," Ken cites a poll regarding how many people regard Bigfoot as a myth. He states 80 to 82 percent believes Bigfoot to be bunk. Where did he get this information? Do you see my frustration here? I don't want to upset Ken Gerhard. I adore and value him tremendously. I think he offers a lot to the Crypto world, but at the same time, he's playing politics over a creature that very well may not exist. He's not taking chances. And that means he is no René Dahinden or Dr. Grover Krantz. He's another Dr. Jeff Meldrum who plays it way too safe at the risk of offending anyone.
One final note I want to make about this book is the "Appendix by Dr. Haskell Hart: Bigfoot and DNA Evidence." What a nice little gem for Gerhard to include. How come that add-on isn't mentioned on the cover underneath "Foreward by Peter Byrne?" It's more valuable than whatever Peter Byrne has to say about Ken Gerhard. But then I suspect that's what this book is about. Ken Gerhard and not about Bigfoot.
Chapter 2's winning segment was the fleshed out Patterson Gimlin film "controversy" section. Gerhard actually devotes seven pages to this and even mentions the ongoing work by The Bluff Creek Project.
Ken Gerhard likes to use the word "controversial" a little too much in describing something that deserves scrutiny. You could make this into a drinking game for every time he uses that "safe" word to describe something or someone that might not be legit.
For example. Paul Freeman on pg. 88. He's a self admitted hoaxer. That's not "controversial." That's calling a spade a spade when the confession is firsthand. Character and integrity are all we have in Bigfoot when all we have are stories and hoaxed footprints with alleged footage. And if a researcher fabricates footpints and admits it on camera, that's not controversial, is it Ken?
Chapter 3 is probably Gerhard's best chapter with a more thought out writing structure with the different stories of Bigfoot remains. But then he watered down the "kill versus no kill" divisive camps in Bigfoot and whether or not it should be captured or killed. Why even mention it if Gerhard is only going to give it two or three sentences like he did with the Skunk Ape?
In Chapter Four: "Bigfoot Sociology," Ken cites a poll regarding how many people regard Bigfoot as a myth. He states 80 to 82 percent believes Bigfoot to be bunk. Where did he get this information? Do you see my frustration here? I don't want to upset Ken Gerhard. I adore and value him tremendously. I think he offers a lot to the Crypto world, but at the same time, he's playing politics over a creature that very well may not exist. He's not taking chances. And that means he is no René Dahinden or Dr. Grover Krantz. He's another Dr. Jeff Meldrum who plays it way too safe at the risk of offending anyone.
One final note I want to make about this book is the "Appendix by Dr. Haskell Hart: Bigfoot and DNA Evidence." What a nice little gem for Gerhard to include. How come that add-on isn't mentioned on the cover underneath "Foreward by Peter Byrne?" It's more valuable than whatever Peter Byrne has to say about Ken Gerhard. But then I suspect that's what this book is about. Ken Gerhard and not about Bigfoot.
Peter Byrne is one of the original four horsemen of Bigfoot. He's an example of someone that calls a spade a spade and doesn't play it safe. Having this highly respected lifelong Bigfoot investigator write a foreward for Gerhard puts Gerhard on the stage to be better, or equally as good, as Peter Byrne. In a nutshell, Peter Byrne is the Big Leagues. Ken Gerhard is the Little Leagues...and it shows.
I found it funny that Peter Byrne thought this book was good for newcomers just as I did. Maybe the problem I have with this book is the title. If it were, "Bigfoot for Newbies," I think I would give it an A+. But as "The Essential Guide to Bigfoot" it gets a D+ and that's being generous. It has no substance without citing or backing up his sources. Just more Bigfoot regurgitation in a watered down Bigfoot book. If you have a young pre-teenager that's curious about the subject of Bigfoot, then this is a must have.
No comments:
Post a Comment