What do you think?
Rate this book
Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend
The myth of Bigfoot has captured the popular imagination since the creature's first public debut in 1958―numerous citations of "evidence," newspaper articles, books, hysterical personal accounts, and even Hollywood movies illustrate the American public's enduring romance with the Sasquatch. The scientific community on the whole, however, has stubbornly refused to comment on what it views as a very tall tale, though Bigfoot's existence continues to be hotly argued between proponents of the beast and its skeptics. Now, biological anthropologist and primate physiology specialist David J. Daegling enters the fray to offer both sides of the dispute benefit of objective scientific study. A well-crafted read, Bigfoot Exposed will prove to be as much a model of scientific method for anthropologists and researchers as it is an engaging and persuasive debunking of the myth of Bigfoot.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
5 people are currently reading
60 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 8, 2007
There are two books here. One is a social history of the legend of Bigfoot and the community of Bigfooters. The other is a skeptical examination of the major pieces of Bigfoot evidence (especially the Patterson film). It was the most well recieved of the books from my class this summer. The students found it clear to read, were interested in the examination of the evidence for the legend, but also got what I wanted, a history of Bigfootery. I would have liked more on the history of the legend and on the modern aspects of the field (there is little on the modern Bigfoot expeditions ala the BFRO). But it is still a good mix of cultural observation and examination of the legend, and I would teach with it again.
July 12, 2008
I read some of this once. The author is a real kill-joy. Why does he have to take away our greatest North American treasure? Ooo, I know about science, Bigfoot isn't real . . . You'll think when Sasquatch eats you.
December 19, 2012
This books talked about the legend of Bigfoot and also looked at a scientific way to look at this mysterious creature that has been seen in the Americas and many other places world wide. He stars out with the most substantial evidence and then sees whether or not a hoax could have been involved in the evidence. He then goes into to the witness end of it as well as the people who claim that its a paranormal activity involved wit it. I thought the book was well written, but some of his arguments for just to prove a hoax could have been in play are far fetched. Especially the one with the deformed foot. I do agree with some of his arguments and it points out some very interesting things that any real Bigfoot researcher should consider. You can't just believe anything you hear and I also agree that the footprints shouldn't be that deep. I would highly recommend it the book if you are skeptic or an avid Bigfoot hunter like myself. It shows some very interesting things that should be considered.I do believe it exists.
July 9, 2024
David J. Daegling's book Bigfoot Exposed: An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend offers an engaging examination of the sociological and cultural facets of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Anthropologist Daegling highlights the enthusiasm and commitment of the Bigfoot community in her thoughtful and polite analysis of the group. He provides insightful explanations of the enduring nature of the Bigfoot legend, as well as how it relates to larger cultural issues and human psychology. Daegling's work is a vital contribution to the anthropological study of contemporary folklore because of its balanced approach to chronicling the beliefs, experiences, and motives of Bigfoot fans. This helps us comprehend this enduring legend.
Daegling's attempts to refute Bigfoot's existence, meanwhile, can come out as unduly condescending. His method occasionally lacks the open-mindedness that may promote a more fruitful conversation between believers and skeptics, despite the importance of skepticism and scientific rigor. His criticisms, it may seem to some readers, focus primarily on emphasizing the dearth of empirical data while ignoring the nuance and veracity of eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence. Though its conclusions on the creature's reality may not please many readers, Bigfoot Exposed nevertheless gives insightful thoughts on why Bigfoot continues to capture the public imagination and is a thought-provoking read despite these criticisms.
Daegling's attempts to refute Bigfoot's existence, meanwhile, can come out as unduly condescending. His method occasionally lacks the open-mindedness that may promote a more fruitful conversation between believers and skeptics, despite the importance of skepticism and scientific rigor. His criticisms, it may seem to some readers, focus primarily on emphasizing the dearth of empirical data while ignoring the nuance and veracity of eyewitness testimony and anecdotal evidence. Though its conclusions on the creature's reality may not please many readers, Bigfoot Exposed nevertheless gives insightful thoughts on why Bigfoot continues to capture the public imagination and is a thought-provoking read despite these criticisms.
September 8, 2020
This is one of favorite skeptical books about supernatural creatures, in this case, of course, the Bigfoot legend. Author Daegling painstakingly goes through all the most famous bits of evidence for this cryptid, including the famous Patterson film. He also goes into depth about basic primate ecology, and how unlikely it would be for a large primate to survive in the places it's supposedly encountered. I also really enjoyed Daegling's writing style--it's readable, and not too bogged down in hard to understand scientific jargon. With a sense of humor, even. Bigfoot believers might not be convinced by his conclusions, but I think they would have to admit that he gives the evidence a fair, extensive look. I highly recommend this one.
June 5, 2021
A great read. I don't necessarily agree with all of Daegling's conclusions, but I appreciate that he is asking a lot of important questions about why we are so obsessed with Bigfoot, and why people continue to encounter something that isn't supposed to exist. I would love to see an updated edition of this book with further post-"Finding Bigfoot" ruminations.
June 6, 2015
I read a lot of Bigfoot books. It's not exactly that I believe in its existence, but I'm fascinated by the idea, and even more so by those people who dedicate their lives to proving it. I'm an agnostic and I want to remain open-minded.
That's why I struggle with so much of the so-called skeptical literature: I don't feel it is approached with an open mind. Much of the evidence claimed by BF supporters is far-fetched, yes, and much of it has turned out to be fabricated; but does that mean all the sightings, all of the weird goings-on, that people have experienced can necessarily be explained away? I don't think so.
In Bigfoot Exposed, Daegling attempts to retain an air of scientific neutrality, but in my opinion, he fails. He fails because it is his assumption that, because we know there have been hoaxes, every piece of evidence must be hoaxed. Take the so-called “cripple foot” tracks, found in Washington state. These tracks were suggestive of a bipedal animal with a foot deformity. By Daegling's belief, they must have been fabricated by some sort of deranged foot-fetishist with advanced knowledge of podiatric anatomy. (Which is equally as believable as the alternative, if you ask me.) His discussion of the Patterson-Gimlin film was inconclusive at best and ludicrous at worst. So he thinks he can recreate the film by filming someone walking funny in the woods while wearing tight, fur-festooned long underwear. OK, maybe this is true, but does it prove what is on the film? Of course not. Nobody, except possibly Mr. Gimlin, knows what's really on that film. Maybe we'll never know. That's why it continues to fascinate us decades later.
But the ultimate frustration that I have with the skeptical Sasquatch literature is that most of the skeptics appear to have never done field research, never hob-nobbed with the “advocates,” never interviewed possible witnesses. Instead they prefer to remain in the ivory tower (a notable exception is Robert Michael Pyle, author of Where Bigfoot Walks, which I ought to review, too). Daegling “searches” for a southern-fried version of Bigfoot, at least, but that serves mainly to poke fun.
Perhaps some skeptics feel threatened by the thought of having strange experiences of their own, of coming across something they cannot explain. Perhaps this feeling leads them to formulate hypotheses that are every bit as hard to believe as a giant hairy ape living in North America. From reading some of the skeptical takes on Bigfoot, I have come to the opinion that some scientists can not accept “we don't know” as an answer, a mindset that is decidedly unscientific.
That's why I struggle with so much of the so-called skeptical literature: I don't feel it is approached with an open mind. Much of the evidence claimed by BF supporters is far-fetched, yes, and much of it has turned out to be fabricated; but does that mean all the sightings, all of the weird goings-on, that people have experienced can necessarily be explained away? I don't think so.
In Bigfoot Exposed, Daegling attempts to retain an air of scientific neutrality, but in my opinion, he fails. He fails because it is his assumption that, because we know there have been hoaxes, every piece of evidence must be hoaxed. Take the so-called “cripple foot” tracks, found in Washington state. These tracks were suggestive of a bipedal animal with a foot deformity. By Daegling's belief, they must have been fabricated by some sort of deranged foot-fetishist with advanced knowledge of podiatric anatomy. (Which is equally as believable as the alternative, if you ask me.) His discussion of the Patterson-Gimlin film was inconclusive at best and ludicrous at worst. So he thinks he can recreate the film by filming someone walking funny in the woods while wearing tight, fur-festooned long underwear. OK, maybe this is true, but does it prove what is on the film? Of course not. Nobody, except possibly Mr. Gimlin, knows what's really on that film. Maybe we'll never know. That's why it continues to fascinate us decades later.
But the ultimate frustration that I have with the skeptical Sasquatch literature is that most of the skeptics appear to have never done field research, never hob-nobbed with the “advocates,” never interviewed possible witnesses. Instead they prefer to remain in the ivory tower (a notable exception is Robert Michael Pyle, author of Where Bigfoot Walks, which I ought to review, too). Daegling “searches” for a southern-fried version of Bigfoot, at least, but that serves mainly to poke fun.
Perhaps some skeptics feel threatened by the thought of having strange experiences of their own, of coming across something they cannot explain. Perhaps this feeling leads them to formulate hypotheses that are every bit as hard to believe as a giant hairy ape living in North America. From reading some of the skeptical takes on Bigfoot, I have come to the opinion that some scientists can not accept “we don't know” as an answer, a mindset that is decidedly unscientific.
December 15, 2024
I appreciated that the author considered every major piece of evidence for Bigfoot and didn’t ignore the “best” arguments in favor of it. I give him credit for his effort and how in-depth he went into the Bigfoot subject. Some of his explanations against the evidence didn’t add up to me and I felt some logical laziness in many of his rebuttals.
It’s a shame that despite having a background in foot anatomy, he never bothered to directly study footprint evidence first-hand, which would’ve given a lot more credibility to his argument. Daegling could have applied his own expertise to analyze the freeman tracks, but instead he cherry-picked and quoted Dahinden to claim that they looked fake without going into details why. Why does Dahinden’s opinion on the freeman tracks override those of two physical anthropologists who study human evolution? I’m going to listen to the scientists who have actually studied the evidence directly and extensively.
Daegljg even made an ableist argument that Freeman shouldn’t have been so successful at tracking Bigfoot with his physical mobility, but Freeman’s diabetes didn’t cause that complication until later in his life.
Jeff Meldrum has also called out a silly mistake Daegling made in trying to prove that Patty’s proportions are normal for human standards. Daegling mistook “intersyche” for chest breadth and falsely claimed that 5% of the German airforce has Patty’s proportions, when her measurements are actually beyond the 99% percentile. He even mentioned that he only looked into this claim because he “has nothing else to do” making his disdain for the subject clear. I’m sure that attitude affect a lot of the thoughts he put into this book.
It’s a shame that despite having a background in foot anatomy, he never bothered to directly study footprint evidence first-hand, which would’ve given a lot more credibility to his argument. Daegling could have applied his own expertise to analyze the freeman tracks, but instead he cherry-picked and quoted Dahinden to claim that they looked fake without going into details why. Why does Dahinden’s opinion on the freeman tracks override those of two physical anthropologists who study human evolution? I’m going to listen to the scientists who have actually studied the evidence directly and extensively.
Daegljg even made an ableist argument that Freeman shouldn’t have been so successful at tracking Bigfoot with his physical mobility, but Freeman’s diabetes didn’t cause that complication until later in his life.
Jeff Meldrum has also called out a silly mistake Daegling made in trying to prove that Patty’s proportions are normal for human standards. Daegling mistook “intersyche” for chest breadth and falsely claimed that 5% of the German airforce has Patty’s proportions, when her measurements are actually beyond the 99% percentile. He even mentioned that he only looked into this claim because he “has nothing else to do” making his disdain for the subject clear. I’m sure that attitude affect a lot of the thoughts he put into this book.
January 20, 2008
.... there is to a bigfoot, I don't care what this m (explicative deleted) says!
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews