[Another] Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real: National Geographic

[Ivan Seeking]

"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

[Jonathan]

I'm surprised that Jane Goodall believes and that there is an Australian bigfoot. But I'm not surprised that Dennett says monsters are a universal by product of the human mind even though the same evidence could also point to a nearly extinct large ape that exists world wide. There are sightings of rocks everyday and everywhere, but that doens't mean they are a result of a universal human tendency to make up rock stories, its obviously because rocks exist.

[zoobyshoe]

I saw a program about a woods monster in Delaware last week. They have a cast of it's footprint made in 1983. They gave it to Jimmy Chilcut, mentioned in this article, and he pronounced it to be obviously human.

This adds to his credibility about the print he said was neither human nor ape, since it shows he's not a whack-job who declares any cast to be neither human nor ape.

This is the first I've heard about the confession of the guy who faked the prints that gave "Bigfoot" it's name, in the late 50's. I didn't realize that had been exposed as a hoax. That being the case, it doesn't bode well for the Patterson film, whose premise was that they were looking for the beast in the same area.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I saw a program about a woods monster in Delaware last week. They have a cast of it's footprint made in 1983. They gave it to Jimmy Chilcut, mentioned in this article, and he pronounced it to be obviously human.

This adds to his credibility about the print he said was neither human nor ape, since it shows he's not a whack-job who declares any cast to be neither human nor ape.

This is the first I've heard about the confession of the guy who faked the prints that gave "Bigfoot" it's name, in the late 50's. I didn't realize that had been exposed as a hoax. That being the case, it doesn't bode well for the Patterson film, whose premise was that they were looking for the beast in the same area.

The Patterson film is an interesting case. I have listened to argument on both sides for decades. Like most of this stuff, it mostly comes down to interpretation. There is one thing that makes me think the film may be genuine: Bigfoot has boobs. I don't see a guy in a monkey suit faking this detail to the extent indicated in the relevant frames of film...especially not back then. Also, Native American legends resolve any problems with longevity. As with many legends, these bigfoot types of legends predate the modern stuff by centuries. These often give rise to the modern myths.

[Jonathan]

What do the Native American legends say about Bigfoot longevity?

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking There is one thing that makes me think the film may be genuine: Bigfoot has boobs. I don't see a guy in a monkey suit faking this detail to the extent indicated in the relevant frames of film...especially not back then.

I have to agree about the boobs. At that point in time, morals being what they were, it would take an extremely unusual person to concieve of genderizing the hoax to begin with, and then to have a suit with boobs made. So, that is a point in the film's favor when it comes to credibility.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Jonathan
What do the Native American legends say about Bigfoot longevity?

I don't know if native Americans claim to have any idea of lifespan. I meant that the the legend predates modern reports.