The founders of hominoid research in Russia are (left to right): Boris Porshnev, Alexander Mashkovtsev, Pyotr Molin, Dmitri Bayanov, and Marie-Jeanne Koffmann. Photograph is from January 1968.
The study continues today with famed Russian hominologists, from left to right, Dmitri Bayanov (the creator of the word “hominology”), Igor Burtsev (holding the common Almas-like print found in the Pamirs, this example from 1979), and Vadim Makarov (with the long four-toed footcast of a True Giant from the Pamirs, 1981). Photograph by Igor Burtsev, November 19, 2010. Michael Trachtengerts, another member of the current group, is pictured below.
The Russians disagree with the recent documentary on National Geographic and Channel 4. They feel their findings are being overlooked. We should let them have their say.
I am curious to see how my DNA project is received by the homology community. My sincere hope is that it will demonstrate that this fascinating field is well within the scope of rigorous scientific enquiry and that aficionados intensify their efforts to find the crucial hairs, now we know that a DNA test is capable of unambiguous species identification on just a single shaft.”
Professor Bryan Sykes has stated: “Bigfootologists and other enthusiasts seem to think that they’ve been rejected by science. Science doesn’t accept or reject anything, all it does is examine the evidence and that is what I’m doing.”
In private exchanges, Dmitri Bayanov answers this: “Neither I nor my colleagues have ever said that we’ve been rejected by Science. I’ve always said that our research and evidence have been ignored by the scientific community and explained why. Our research means a new science and a revolution in science, while the scientific community is made up of ‘normal science’ guys and it is they, as history of science testifies, who reject as long as possible a revolution in science,” (November 10, 2013).
The following is Dr. Dmitri Bayanov’s Address at the Meeting of Russian and Foreign Hominologists at the Darwin Museum, which states their position specifically.
It is shared here now as an important statement from the Russians in the wake of what they feel is a misunderstanding of their position from Icon Films, during the recent broadcast of the three-part documentary about Yeti, Almasty, and Bigfoot on Channel 4 last month, and the two-hour special on Sunday, November 17th, on NatGeo.
Dmitri Bayanov. Photo credit: Daniel Perez, 2001.
The Problem of Acknowledgement of Hominology
by the Scientific Community by Dmitri Bayanov
On behalf of Russian hominologists I greet our foreign friends and colleagues, as well as other guests of this conference.
What are the meaning and goals of efforts exerted by hominologists? First of all in achieving recognition by world science of the existence of living relict hominids. (Explanation why I use the term “hominid”, not “hominoid,” would take time, so I skip it).
Hominologists acknowledged the existence of these primates in the second half of last century and described their discoveries in many books and articles.
But fundamentalists of academic science as a rule do not read our books and articles because they “know” (in inverted commas) that what is written in them just cannot be. They still believe that the Patterson-Gimlin authentic documentary is a fraud.
What is the reason for this anti-scientific situation in world science? I will name three outstanding reasons.
Reason number one is that, due to its highest volume of knowledge, world science has become highly specialized, while it is said that “a specialist is like a swollen cheek: his fullness is one-sided.”
Study of hominids [which is] different from us has long been conducted by paleoanthropologists who find and examine fossil material. The question of living non-Homo sapiens hominids is beyond their knowledge and horizon.
The scientific community believes the blind faith of these fine but narrow specialists that all such hominids died out at least tens of thousands of years ago. And this is not surprising, for evidence here is skeletal remains of long dead, not presently living specimens.
In the ancient world, and even later, when the number of sciences was smaller, when scientists were philosophers and encyclopedists, they well knew of the existence of wild hairy bipeds whom they called troglodytes, that is “cavemen”. One of such philosophers and lumenaries of natural history was Carolus Linneaus, the author of the terms Homo sapiens and Homo troglodytes. For the latter he also used the terms “silvestris” and “nocturnus”. Thus Linnaeus is the forefather of our direction of science.
Anthropologists are still unaware of the remarkable historical fact that the central and pretentious term of anthropology – Homo sapiens – appeared in science just in contrast to Homo troglodytes, the Caveman, whose existence was known to naturalists of antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Reason number two is that the abundant biological information in folklore and mythology about these close to us bipedal primates is regarded by academic science as nothing more than popular fantasies based on superstition. In Russian folklore and demonology, the main term for these beings is “leshy” (forest man). The Nepalese word “yeti” used by our journalists instead of the Russian name “leshy” is a misnomer.
Reason number three is in the unique nature of relict hominids, in their special (including sexual) relations with people of our species, in their extreme elusiveness and great parapsychological abilities.
Extreme secretiveness is also typical, as a rule, of people who establish and maintain friendly contact with these beings. In recent years however there have appeared several exceptions to this rule, which have brought most valuable results that will be reported I hope by my colleagues.
The reasons I named are closely interconnected and strengthen one another.
Modern world science is a conglomerate of numerous sciences, which lacked however a discipline devoted to the study of relict hominids, and thus their existence happened to be beyond the scope of the scientific community, and this despite the fact that the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, for example, is well known to the US government. The reasons why this knowledge is not becoming official and public are also well known in America.
In 1999 I wrote a letter to Bill Clinton, then US President, and sent him two our books: In the Footsteps of the Russian Snowman and America’s Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction– US Evidence Verified in Russia. In the letter I asked him to pay attention to the Bigfoot problem and defend good names of Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin who are constantly accused of having presented a fraud as a documentary film.
I received the following reply from the US President: “Thank you for your kind gift and for sharing your thoughts and concerns. It’s important for me to know your views. I’m glad you took the time to write.”
Alas, he did not do what I asked him for.
In short, relict hominids were unknown to science because there was no science to know them. Today we have such science.
Since deep specialization of modern science is inevitable, the problem had to be resolved by creating one more special discipline – hominology, devoted to recognition and study of relict hominids.
The founding father of hominology in this country was Professor Boris Porshnev, historian and philosopher (life years 1905-1972). In my view, it is just because he was a humanist philosopher that the problem of man’s origin excited him so strongly.
After half a century of our efforts under the hard conditions of self-funding and ostracism on the part of the scientific establishment , a few words on the situation right now.
Our North-American colleagues have succeeded at last in taking clear videos of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, in addition to the Patterson-Gimlin documentary film. This happened thanks to the exceptions among Bigfoot befrienders that I mentioned earlier. They have also obtained DNA samples of these hominids, with the analysis to be published in a scientific journal.
We wholeheartedly congratulate our North-American friends on these outstanding achievements. They give hope that the reality of relict hominids will soon be generally acknowledged.
This will be the fuse of a scientific revolution in anthropology. The revolution in anthropology is about the most important question of human life, that is about human nature, about knowing ourselves.
Besides, acknowledgement of relict hominids and hominology will raise a most important critical question of the quality and perspectives of modern world science, including the question of its lunatic militarization.
In conclusion we express heartfelt thanks to the Darwin Museum for actively supporting our activities from the very beginning in the middle of last century, for literally providing the roof over our heads.
We also extend our deep thanks to Aman Tuleyev, Governor of the Kemerovo Region, for his unexpected, very brave and many-sided support of our investigations at the present time. This is most fortunate and will be recorded in the history of science.
Thank you for listening.
Bayanov Dmitri Yurevich, science director
International Center of Hominology
on October 5, 2011.