WELCOME TO THE CFZ BLOG NETWORK: COME AND JOIN THE FUN

Half a century ago, Belgian Zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans first codified cryptozoology in his book On the Track of Unknown Animals.

The Centre for Fortean Zoology (CFZ) are still on the track, and have been since 1992. But as if chasing unknown animals wasn't enough, we are involved in education, conservation, and good old-fashioned natural history! We already have three journals, the largest cryptozoological publishing house in the world, CFZtv, and the largest cryptozoological conference in the English-speaking world, but in January 2009 someone suggested that we started a daily online magazine! The CFZ bloggo is a collaborative effort by a coalition of members, friends, and supporters of the CFZ, and covers all the subjects with which we deal, with a smattering of music, high strangeness and surreal humour to make up the mix.

It is edited by CFZ Director Jon Downes, and subbed by the lovely Lizzy Bitakara'mire (formerly Clancy), scourge of improper syntax. The daily newsblog is edited by Corinna Downes, head administratrix of the CFZ, and the indexing is done by Lee Canty and Kathy Imbriani. There is regular news from the CFZ Mystery Cat study group, and regular fortean bird news from 'The Watcher of the Skies'. Regular bloggers include Dr Karl Shuker, Dale Drinnon, Richard Muirhead and Richard Freeman.The CFZ bloggo is updated daily, and there's nothing quite like it anywhere else. Come and join us...

Search This Blog

Loading...

Saturday, October 16, 2010

CHINESE "BIGFOOT" PICTURE

This picture, which purports to be a file photo of "an unidentified Bigfoot in Shennongjia, China's Hubei Province," arrived in my inbox on Friday afternoon, accompanying a story on "the appearance of a Bigfoot on Taibai Mountain in Xi'an, Shaanxi".

Has anyone seen it before, and does anyone have any ideas about its provenance?

1 comment:

Dale Drinnon said...

Probably good as an illustration of what it is SUPPOSED to look like. But it obviously a piece of artwork and not a photograph. I still count it as indirect evidence of what the witnesses are reporting on the grounds that it is reproduced for that reason. An actual photograph might not be good enough to say THAT much.