Bigfoot: To Kill Or To Film

© 2000 Dmitri Bayanov

Foreword

Contents | Foreword & Introduction | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Bibliography

When I first learned of the contention among Bigfoot researchers on the 'kill or film' issue, I gave the matter little or no thought. After all, we have not to this point provided conclusive evidence that the creature even exists. Further, do we really have any control over the issue? Who is to say that the person faced with such a decision would be aware of its ramifications? On the surface, these points provide a good argument that the issue does not merit a great deal of concern.

After reviewing Dmitri Bayanov's manuscript, I arrived at an appreciation of his passionate concern on the issue. In other words, I now see very clearly why he has been insistent to the point of frustration that intentional killing of a Bigfoot must not be condoned under any circumstances except self-defense.

From Dmitri's standpoint, the first question I raised (Bigfoot existence) is to him a total non-issue. Dmitri is thoroughly convinced that Bigfoot is a natural creature. It is important for the reader to understand this fact right from the outset. The possibility, therefore, for someone to be faced with a 'kill or don't kill,' decision is to Dmitri just a matter of time.

My second point (decision control), is not so easily dismissed. The total number of Bigfoot researchers and enthusiasts would hardly measure against the number of hunters and other armed people in Bigfoot's domain. Nevertheless, Dmitri points out that the community of Bigfoot researchers (especially those with high profile) can influence the decisions of others in all walks of life. Dmitri reasons that a unified stand on the issue could definitely 'make a difference.' The emphasis here on the word unified is important. A divided stand (i.e., both for and against killing) is not much better than no stand at all.

Dmitri, of course, wants an unqualified 'no killing' policy to be publicly declared by all high profile or influential Bigfoot researchers. Certainly, judging by the information on record the three major North American Bigfoot researchers are far removed from making such a declaration. However, I have pointed out to Dmitri that some time has passed since he last confronted these researchers with the issue — are we certain they still have the same mind-sets? On this question Dmitri responded that if they have changed their minds, this book will provide them with an opportunity to say so.

I have edited and published this book as a writer and a publisher, not as a Bigfoot researcher. I have not altered the intended message of any information presented, nor have I confirmed or verified the accuracy of any statements, quotations or facts.
Christopher L. Murphy

Introduction

This is my third major publication in English dealing with the problems of a new discipline — hominology. The first two, In The Footsteps of the Russian Snowman (1996) and America's BIGFOOT: Fact, Not Fiction† (1997), present and discuss certain evidence for the existence of relict hominoids (actually, hominids) in Eurasia and North America. The books also give the reader an idea why this evidence has been ignored or rejected by the scientific establishment for so long. The science of primatology, as foreseen by Boris Porshnev, is on the verge of a revolutionary change, spurred by the emergence of a new paradigm concerning the origin of modern man — Homo sapiens. Within the old paradigm, primatology, anthropology, and paleoanthropology are simply conceptually impotent to deal with the phenomenon of relict hominids. Thus there appeared a divide and conflict in science between those who recognize the reality of this phenomenon and those who reject it.

This work is about a conflict and split among Bigfoot researchers themselves, a source of their weakness for decades. It is a conflict over the eternal problem of ends and means — how to prove the existence of Bigfoot in the face of relentless opposition from the scientific community. Here is the opinion of John Green: "Science will keep its eyes tightly shut until someone produces a body, or part of one, and the more quickly it is done the better. The successful hunter should find it very profitable as well." (The Sasquatch File, 1973, p. 71.) Grover Krantz's attitude is described in the press as follows: "He is one of the most vocal proponents of killing a Sasquatch in order to prove they exist. 'I want to rub a few faces in the corpse,' he says. His advice is to shoot it, cut off an arm or a leg or anything you can carry and get the hell out." (Human Behavior, September 1978, p. 20.)

In the mid 1970's, I initiated a "great debate" by correspondence among several hominologists on the "to kill or to film" question — in which Green and I were the main adversaries. The controversy culminated in my rebuttal to Green, "Why It Is Not Right To Kill A Gentle Giant", published in Pursuit, Fall 1980. During the 1980s I argued and clashed with Grover Krantz over the issue. He published his pro-kill views and calls in the article "Research on Unknown Hominoids in North America" (1984) and in his book Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry into the Reality of Sasquatch† (1992). My counter-arguments are either unpublished or printed in obscure publications which is reason enough to bring them to light here. The airing is needed not just for argument's sake but because the issue is of great humanistic significance.

† Available from Amazon.com

Contents | Foreword & Introduction | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Bibliography