But here’s a telling blurb from an old friend of ours, on Amazon.com:

“The mistaken assumption of past Bigfoot investigation is that the phenomenon is best understood from the perspective of natural history. Joshua Blu Buhs has written an original and engaging book that tells us the meaning of the hairy beast that won’t go away yet we cannot seem to find. Bigfoot is the definitive history of the legend’s social and cultural context, and it offers an explanation for the phenomenon that will be pondered and discussed for years to come.”

-David Daegling, author of Bigfoot Exposed

Yep, that big ol’ ‘mistaken assumption,’ for which Daegling can’t come up with thing one to back his case.

One thing’s for sure. A book that gets kudos from someone like that isn’t doing much for cryptozoology.

But again, it might be amusing. Maybe.

proriter: ignorance is all anyone should be afraid of. And if I were a cryptozoologist, I’d have long since seen more than enough of that to have me jumping at shadows.

(Or anything else brainless.)

I never said Mr. Buhs attributed all sightings to hoaxes. I said he seems to attribute them to hoaxes AND mistaken identity. If he doesn’t believe Bigfoot exists & he acknowledges the existence of hoaxers, the only other possibility is mistaken identity of known animals

Let me engage in a little analogy. I personally don’t believe that all the folks reporting abduction and encounters with little grey men are seeing aliens from another planet. There just isn’t enough evidence to prove they are from another planet. It doesn’t mean I don’t think the PHENOMENON is real, or that folks aren’t experiencing SOMETHING real, an unknown that they are interpreting in terms of the known (in this case the “known” is technology and so they are more technologically advanced beings).

The fact that the phenomenon has always been with us both leads me to believe the phenomenon is something real (i.e. in the 19th century, the same phenomenon interpreted in terms of the “known” church literature, would have been a succubus demon), but not necessarily exactly what the experiencer interpreted the phenomenon as. (The fact that the has been interpreted differently in different eras, in fact, leads me to believe that the Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis has no more validity than the faery/demon/wizard hypotheses of past ages.)

From what I’ve read of Mr. Buhs in his own words from interviews (granted I haven’t read his book yet, but I look forward to it, despite our difference in opinion on the reality of Sasquatch), he takes a similar track.

Now, the very fact that Sasquatch sightings, on the other hand, have maintained certain consistencies across the eras, combined with the outdoor experience of many witnesses and the remote locations of much of the physical evidence (e.g. footprints) I’ve personally seen leads me to the opposite determination when it comes to Sasquatch (in other words, I’m pretty convinced they are a flesh and blood animal based on the circumstantial evidence and my own observations).

However, I can’t dismiss the fact that they have also become a part of our American popular culture and also likely fulfill cultural and mythological roles filled in other eras and cultures by wood woses and wild men and the like. In the same way that coyote trickster tales don’t detract from the fact that flesh and blood coyote are real critters, I don’t think acknowledging and studying the role Bigfoot plays in our pop culture necessarily need detract from the search for a flesh and blood critter.

In closing, I’d just say that acknowledging your skepticism about the interpretation of a sighting is not necessarily dismissing the testimony of the witness. In fact, its the honorable thing to do if you do have a bias. Until I’ve read the book, I can’t really say how respectfully Mr. Buhs treats the subject. But until I do, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Heck, its the least I can do seeing as how, in the past, I’ve even stood up for the rights of skoftics like Ben Radford to contribute to the dialogue.

“There are the hoaxsters out there,” he continued. “But there is also a real core group of people who are very sincere and earnest, just trying to understand what their friends have seen or they have seen themselves.”

Did y’all bother to read this in the article Loren posted before accusing the author of calling all reports “hoaxes”?

No wonder folks think those involved in crypto-studies are nutters. Y’all give us a bad name.

It seems folks need to back up a bit, and re-frame what’s happening here in the comments section in terms of some reality testing.

You have wvbig09 first commenting, “He seems to be among those who believe most sightings are the result of hoaxes or mistaken identity,” without having read the book, it seems. Even I don’t see that being said in the review, above.

Then, DWA made the jump to “The view that everything is the result of hoaxes is incredible.” Again, this comment is without reference to anything in Buhs’ book or the review.

Next, tropicalwolf begins by saying “EVERY sighting a hoax??? EVERY sighting??? Really???” and ends with “EVERY…Really??? Nuff said.”

This is how the game “telegraph” and “telephone” are played, with the statements having nothing to do with what Buhs originally has written in the book.

I would recommend folks read the book before jumping to conclusions.

Thank you very much for your support. I really appreciate your calling attention to my book, and the very gracious thoughts you have shared about it.

I would also like to take this occasion to clear up some seeming misconceptions about the book. I do not claim that “every” sighting was a hoax. It’s not attributed to me in the review, and I don’t say it in the book.

I was trying to understand the interest in Bigfoot: who was attracted to the creature? Why? How did knowledge about it come to accumulate. During the five years I spent on the book, I came to certain conclusions about Bigfoot’s existence. But this was based on my review of the information that went into the general creation of Bigfoot–that is to say, a review of the classic cases.

I did not examine every sighting, nor attempt to explain every sighting. That was not the goal of the book. As I say in the review, there very well may be people who have seen things they (or I or no one) can explain. The world’s full of such things.

But, I still think the book could be very interesting even for those who accept the evidence in support of Bigfoot’s existence. Nothing in my approach presupposes that Bigfoot does not exist–indeed, I used a similar methodology in my earlier book on imported fire ants, and no one doubts their existence! But, the book does provide a narrative history of the study of Bigfoot, which might be useful to even those who see the evidence differently than I do.

Again, Loren and commenters, thanks for your interest in the book.