Source Comes Forward

Steven Streufert has released a statement from the source of the conversation in my previous article "Did Bigfoot Once Have Wings?"

It can be found here:

Here is the statement in full: 

A statement from Rhettman Mullis re. the revelations re. Ketchum today: 

I sent Melba a sample through Tim Olson. I was first told it was viable. 

Then I began conversations with Sykes and Nekaris to do this DNA project in January of 2012. By March it was going public early. At the same time I invited Melba to work with Sykes as the projects need to have replication anyway 

That summer before (2011) I had invited Melba and Sally to become a part of Bigfootology and they both, understandably declined for the moment. 

Melba did not really answer me about working with Sykes...ignored me about it if I recall correctly. 

It was soon after that I had this conversation with Melba on March 12th, 2012, and frankly after the conversation I was wondering if I had done the right thing. 

It was a little while later that the project with Sykes became a go and Melba continued to ignore me about it. It was also at that time when our sample was no longer viable, and then later we were told that we never submitted a sample. 

My conversation with Melba was a friendly conversation that had a great deal to do with theology as in addition to being a behavior scientist, I am an ordained pastor and I found her conclusions highly questionable and from a psychologist point of view I found her persona highly concerning. 

Afterwards, frankly, I was okay with her not wanting to work with us because I did not want to deal with that since I work with clients like that weekly and I like working with healthy-persona people outside of work. 

But I am about the science first, and I thought it would be a good collaboration between her and Sykes if the science and methodology is sound. 

I am not qualified to determine the authenticity of genetic science and that is why I turned her paper over to Sykes and Nekaris and both did not respond favorably to the science in the paper. Genetics is not my area of expertise. 

So the conversation evolved and that is what is public now. I am under no NDA or sample contract. 

This was my attempt to push science forward and bring key-players together, which is what I do, I am a bridge-person, always bringing peace and people together, and some have seen me do this firsthand. 

Even publicly, on Coast to Coast AM when I gave my updates I continued to publicly encourage Melba to do the right thing... 

I have never attacked her privately or publicly. I just want her to maintain scientific integrity. I have always told people that I do not care who gets credit for the discovery, just that it is done properly. So no one can question the integrity of the finding and that is what has happened in Melba's project. Everything is now questionable. 

Statement regarding the release of the relevant parts of the conversation: 

For over two years I have encouraged Melba to maintain the integrity of her project and hoped for the best for her and her potentially-historic project. I withdrew that support last summer when multiple situations came forth and I began to see questionable actions and practices by Melba in her project. I maintained my silence and publicly continued to encourage her to do the right thing, but the situation has continued to decline. I am okay to stand on the sidelines for the purpose of keeping the peace and letting someone make their own bed of self-sabotage. In this case, however, it has become a larger problem when innocent people get attacked because they are being honest and I continue to say nothing while holding the evidence of her own words. Because I hold the evidence of her own words and I stand by and not let the truth be known then I become duplicitous in that attacking of honest people and that goes against the grain of who I am as a scientist and as a pastor. By releasing this I am not attacking Melba as that is never my intent, I am merely letting her own words show her for what she really thinks and what she is really doing in order to protect the many others who have been ruthlessly attacked and accused of being liars when it is not the case. 

Rhettman A. Mullis, Jr., MS, MHP

Did Bigfoot Once Have Wings?

Let me preface this article by saying that it is heavily credited to anonymous sources. All of them supplied screenshot evidence to substantiate their claims, although not all of them allowed the publication of the screenshots. All of the screenshots are from direct conversations with Dr. Melba Ketchum, so they aren’t speculation or hearsay. I will paraphrase the content from the screenshots I did not have permission to publish to protect the identity of the sources. 

The Biggest Contradiction:

Remember when the Angel/Alien DNA rumors were flying around? Robin Lynne denied them as can be read at http://bizarrezoology.blogspot.com/2012/11/claims-of-hominin-hybrids-living-today.html.

“We have not said that it has angel DNA . That was not said by anyone on our team, but someone else on the outside. That is very much a false rumor.”

Some even defended it by saying Angel DNA was an old term used to refer to unknown DNA. 

But then I read this:  Conversations with Dr. Ketchum - PDF version

I’m not going to bash someone’s beliefs. As a religious person myself, a lot of these theories have often crossed my mind. The problem is that if this is her belief, why the denial? If this really is what you believe them to be, why run away from it? And does the belief matchup with the science? 

And because someone will bring up legal issues, the above conversation came from someone who never signed a non-disclosure agreement. 

The Science: 

They share a 3% homology to human (which is closer to the ~80% homology of Lemur than the ~90% homology of apes) which is explained in an interesting theory by Dr. Ketchum. She said she believes after the initial hybridization, they stopped breeding with humans and interbred the human out of them. At time of hybridization they would be 50% human. How much time would it take to remove 47% of the homology?

I am openly asking any geneticists and biologists to comment on the possibility of the above, given the timeline. Would it be possible for a hybridization to take place, and then remove said hybridization from only the nuDNA leaving the mtDNA completely intact? 

Can you even claim something with only 3% homology to human is human? The claims of 100% human mtDNA makes it interesting, but Dr. Ketchum knew this. She specifically said the mtDNA would have to be made more important. The statement didn’t go deeper, but it leaves a list of endless possibilities. Was the mtDNA 100% human as claimed, or was it just presented that way? The absence of the full sequences as well as full DNA reports leaves the possibility of wrong-doing on the table. I am in no way accusing Dr. Ketchum of doing so, but this magnifies the problems of not having everything included in the paper. When you express the need for something to be made more important, it invites questions and scrutiny. Science should dictate what is seen by those reviewing the data. Not the author. 

This also explains the recent jump to the samples from Peru. Dr. Ketchum said she believes they might be the paternal donor. For more information on the Peru aspect of the studies, you can read the OTLS! blog. 

I still invite Dr. Ketchum to come forward and discuss this now that it’s on the table. There’s no more denying. It’s out and I think you’ll find that there’s a lot of people that will agree with those theories. The problem is proving those theories. Even the 3% homology isn’t explained or proven. The paper claims they are a human/unknown hybrid without any explanation at all about the reverse evolution back to the 3%. The missing steps need to be explained and show data. This isn’t just about a hybridization hypothesis anymore. Why was that entire de-evolution to a previous form never even mentioned in the paper? 

If this can all be proven, I’m all ears. 

Bigfoot DNA or Garden Gnomes?

As I pointed out at the end of my last article, I made a mistake in my notes. Instead of simply deleting my mistake when I realized it, I did a strike-through and left it up so that others would see that I am accountable for my mistakes. I will never claim to be perfect and if I do make a mistake I expect to be called out on them. She has since edited the paper and removed Sarah Bollinger from the co-author list. 

And as I also pointed out, there have been mistakes and contradictions in Dr. Melba Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA study. I don’t point them out as a personal attack, I point them out because finding the truth is the most important thing in my job as part of this community. When I felt I was being spun after some rather simple and softball questions that I was allowed to ask, I felt the whole truth wasn’t being told.

The following will be a list of some of those mistakes and contradictions only since the paper was released. Dr. Ketchum is more than free to respond and explain to us why these took place. 

The Journal. 

• It begins with her signing up on Zoobank on Oct. 25, 2012. 
• The name of her paper and the species name is registered on Zoobank on Nov. 18, 2012. 
• The Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology is registered on Zoobank on Jan. 9, 2013. 
• A Scholastica page for this journal is created on Jan. 11, 2013. 
• Denova Scientific Journal is registered on godaddy.com on Feb. 4, 2013. 
• Denova Scientific Journal publishes Novel North American Hominins after she obtains journal and renames it. 

The editor of the journal is unknown. The editor of the paper is Dr. Rayford Wallace. He’s not a medical or scientific doctor though. His doctorate is in Ministry. 

I won’t even get into Casey Mullins and the blogger site that showed up weeks after the paper had been released. The timeline above is troubling. The sudden rush not only seems like a mistake, if was going to raise enough eyebrows to actually look into the rush. 

The Peer Review.

Dr. Ketchum has repeatedly claimed that there was obscene scientific bias against her paper. That was the entire reason for having to purchase the journal. 

tetzoo.com/podcast/2013/2/20/episode-3-featuring-bigfoots-feet

Darren Naish was actually one of those reviewers that rejected the paper. Around the 72nd minute, they start discussing the paper and Darren makes the reveal. He claims there was no bias and reveals the real reason the paper was denied. He would have been thrilled to spread the news that Bigfoot was real. But he said the paper simply did not prove the claims it was setting forth. 

The Paper. 

As I laid out in my last article, Dr. Ketchum claims there’s no more data, while the paper says otherwise. She supplied 2.7Mbp, 2.1Mbp, and 0.53??Mbp for her 3 genomes. A single genome should be approximately 3Gbp or even 135Mbp for just the chromosome 11 section. That’s a substantial chunk of missing data. 

When I contacted co-authors and contributors I was met with the similar response from all of them that bothered to answer. Here is one of those emails: 

Dear Mr. Weeast, Thank you for your email concerning the sequencing that we provided to Dr. Ketchum and co-workers. This work was performed as a fee for service. We have not been involved in the analysis of the results. Further, we are not at liberty and have no intention of discussing the laboratory results that we obtained with anyone but Dr. Ketchum or her colleagues. I would suggest that you direct your questions to her. Our core has only provided sequencing service for this study and we are not involved beyond that.All the best,Ward WakelandEdward K. Wakeland, Ph.D Edwin L. Cox Distinguished Chair in Immunology and Genetics Director, Walter M. and Helen D. Bader Center for Research on Arthritis and Autoimmune Diseases Director, IIMT Genomics Core Professor and Chairman, Department of Immunology

Notice he says there was no analysis done at their labs. None. Her paper claims otherwise: 

In depth analysis of all three genomic sequences (samples 26, 31 and 140) was performed at the University of Texas, Southwestern and alignment confirmed by the University of North Texas Health Science Center. Using CLC Bio Genomic Workbench version 5.1, a subsample of extracted reads were assembled to create a consensus sequence using the human chromosome 11 ….

So if they didn’t do the analysis, who did? 

And finally on Friday, Mar. 22, 2013, Dr. Ketchum posted the following on facebook:

The following was a unsolicited commentary by A. John Marsh on a genealogy DNA page which scientists use to discuss mtDNA origin. This is not the complete discussion . However, it sums up the analysis.
T2 BIGFOOTS FOUND IN 5 DIFFERENT STATES:
Along with the fact that all Bigfoots seem to have several different mtDNA mutations from each other, they also are found in 5 different states. It suggests that if a single T2b human female mated with a Bigfoot male 13,000 years ago, that the descendants of the T2b ancestor have spread widely in USA since then.
AGE OF T2b:
Web site
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121018/srep00745/full/srep00745.html
If T2b is 12-10kya, and T1/ T2 coalesced about 19kya, T2b might very roughly originate about 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
THINGS I NOTED ABOUT MUTATIONS DIFFERENT IN BIGFOOT AND HUMANS:
One thing I noted was that all the 52 number diverse T2b haplogroup listed humans in the T2 project had a mutation 146T, but none of the Bigfoot had that mutation. It seems in fact that all T haplogroup have 146T. I am guessing that the earliest common ancestor of all Bigfoots had a back mutation on that marker to the CRS value.
Another thing I noticed was that all Bigfoots which appear to have been tested on the lower number markers, have mutation 73G. Yet not one of the
52 human mtDNA T2b persons had the mutation 73G. Why not? Was 73G a very early mutation in the Bigfoot line?
All the fully tested 4 Bigfoots had the 263G mutation, but not one single one of the 52 humans had 263G. Why not?
It seems all human T2bs have have 16187C and 16189T, but no bigfoots have either. In fact, all human haplgroup T are postive for both these mutations, so presumably in the common ancestor of all Bigfoots there was a mutation reverting to CRS.
According to the Ketchum knockers, all the mtDNA Haplotypes in her project are modern contamination. All of these Bigfoot haplotypes are different.
Isn't it a bit puzzling that all of these humans mistaken as Bigfoot have different T2 mtDNA haplotypes, all have 73G and 263G mutations not found in humans, and all seem to have had back mutations on 146T, 16187C and 16189T, where these back mutations are apparently not found in any human T2b s?

John.

That sounds interesting. Dr. Ketchum was very excited. An hour earlier she posted:

"We just received permission to post. There will most likely be a new paper come from this so we will not post the new findings but you will see enough of the proof to validate the paper. I am SO excited!!!!!"

I apologize for tempering your excitement, but the thread is from Ancestry.com, not a genealogy DNA page. And A. John Marsh isn’t a scientist. He is an architect. A landscape architect to be precise, so according to Dr. Ketchum’s analysis of doctors, would that make him a lawn-chair scientist? But he built the excitement to write another paper... Did she see what he said about Q30 scores? 

Does the Q30 quality scores of above 88 mean 30 times average coverage, and 88 percent of the genome reconstructed? Just my guess, I don't know what it means. But on the face of it, does the scores obtained hint at a reliable coverage? 

The Foundations.

All of her foundations have one thing in common. They are businesses. All of the payment methods point to her paypal address at DNA Diagnostics. Claiming to run a non-profit while actually operating as a for-profit business is a serious matter. Even the newest foundation the Melba Ketchum Global Sasquatch Foundation announces itself as a non-profit, but is only registered in Texas as a business. It is not listed as a non-profit, nor is it listed in the pending applications for non-profit license. 

You can do the texas look up here: https://ourcpa.cpa.state.tx.us/coa/Index.html and enter Global Sasquatch Foundation as the name 

You can search the IRS non-profit list here: http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ and enter the same name with Garland, Texas as City and State. You can search both existing and those that have applied from that page. 

This entire project may have started with a noble goal, but it’s obviously steered in an unknown direction. Perhaps the missing data also holds a key to the direction it’s going. 

As before, I call on Dr. Ketchum to answer the questions. There are plenty of qualified scientists that can validate your data if it really says what you claim it does. What you released doesn't. I'm sure Mr. Marsh is a great guy and it looks like he's done a decent job with his family's history, but for Sasquatch it's going to take someone a little more experienced. 

Based on a True Lab Report

The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact - Thomas Huxley 

The hypothesis of Dr. Melba Ketchum dared to answer one of the great questions of our age -- if there is a missing link, another hominid, a distant relative of humans and where this fits in within the evolutionary tree, all in one fell swoop. 

Instead focusing on the task of proving if they were real or not, she skipped ahead and declared  they are an extant species that arrived after the hybridization of modern females and an unknown novel hominin approximately 13,000 - 15,000 years ago. 

Many scientists have stepped forward to question the results presented in this paper, and while a few have raised questions about the number of haplotypes found in the near 100% homology to human mitochondrial DNA sequences, the real issue has been the nuclear DNA. 

Nuclear DNA holds the information inherited by both parents, unlike the mitochondrial DNA which only holds information inherited by the mother.  

Ridgerunner is a member of the BFF and a Molecular Biologist with 30 years experience in functional genetics. He is not what I could call an "armchair scientist." He had he following to say:

“During fertilization, the genomes from the two parents recombine, having cross-over events along the chromosomes at regions of homology, creating a novel hybrid chromosome. Given that mammals have similar size genomes, and primates even more so, the resulting hybrid chromosome should be of similar size to human if that is the maternal side. So the whole genome should be 3Gbp and the chromosome 11 135Mbp, give or take say 10%.  The size of the contigs (Dr. Ketchum) has provided (2.7Mbp, 2.1Mbp, and 0.53??Mbp) ,while appearing to expand the whole of human Ch11, are simply way, way too short if they are meant to represent the whole chromosome.”

Many of the critical reviews of the paper that I have read, have said that we must wait for Dr. Ketchum to release more data. "Only 1% of the data is there." But they’re wrong. The contigs are homologous to human chromosome 11, but it’s still only 2% of what should be there. (solely based on total DNA content the contig size of 2.7Mbp and the Hu Ch11 size of 135Mbp). 

In conversations with Troy Hudson, a spokesperson for Dr. Ketchum who has been very patient and tried to explain things to the best of his abilities, reiterated that fact multiple times. 

“All the answers to the questions people have are in the paper and data"

“The scientists and journal peer review passed it and understood it, why can't everyone else understand, but again that is why some of her scientist that worked on writing the paper said, not everyone will understand the results, because they do not work in genetics and DNA on a daily basis.”

“Melba said everything is in the paper, except the physical samples.”

“No no, she told me and I told you everything is in the paper.”

The paper contradicts Troy and Dr. Ketchum's claims though. 

"The DNA from these three samples was sequenced using the next generation Illumina platform at the University of Texas, Southwestern in Dallas, TX, a laboratory that sequences human genomes​75-77. On average, there were 70-110 million total reads for each sample in each lane, which is well over 90 Gb of raw sequence for each sample comprising greater than 30X coverage" - Next Generation Whole Genome Sequencing section of the "Novel North American Hominins." 

The illumina sequencing is not chromosome 11 specific, so there should be more data. Could this be the confusion with the 1%  number being thrown around? Melba asserts multiple times that everything is there and it is all that is needed to prove her hypothesis. Does she think the other data won't help that proof? Or did she only request the chromosome 11 specific data? 

So if what was thought to be 1% turned out to be 100%, what does that say about the data? Did they tell me that so that others would only focus on what's there, instead of what could be missing. That would be misleading, so I'll trust that it's all of the data, but based on what's there...

"The three samples can not be the same species, and are too far removed from any biological sample to fit in with any theory of evolution and are simply not human, period!" - Ridge Runner

Contamination has been brought up by both sides of the argument, especially when related to the Q30 scores. Dr. Ketchum's paper said this:

"Q30 can also be used to determine if there was any contamination (or mixture) found in the samples sequenced.  According to Illumina, a pure, single source sample would have an Q30 score of 80 or greater with an average of 85. However, if there was contamination present in the sample sequenced, the divergent sequences would compete against one another prior to sequencing causing a contaminated sample to have a Q30 score of 40 to 50."- Next Generation Whole Genome Sequencing section of the "Novel North American Hominins."

She used this reference here, which doesn't once mention contamination. The technical notes are a complete and finished project, like the paper in question is supposed to be. Q30 scores show how consistent the readings are, not how contaminated.

I attempted to contact co-authors and contributors listed in the paper and either didn't get a reply or was told they only did sequencing and did zero analysis on the paper. Some had never read it or offered no comment on it if they did. 

For the record, I am not attacking Dr. Ketchum. I adhere strictly to the “attack the argument, not the arguer” mantra. I am a reporter and have a need to find the truth. If something doesn’t sit right with me, I will obsessively dig into it until I find the answers. It’s an admitted flaw, but one that helps in what I do. 

When I initially inquired about the questions with the data, I was contacted by Troy and after explaining my position, was invited to submit a few questions that would be forwarded to Dr. Ketchum. The answers stalled mainly because of the confusion related to the “1% data” that was finally explained above. There was a constant repeat of the reluctance to deal with anyone in the Bigfoot community. 

As a writer that didn’t sit right. As a reporter, I took it as a challenge. It made me want to dig deeper. And I have much more information than is listed here, but sources do not wish to come forward at this time. I have my own ethical standards to uphold as a journalist. 

To Dr. Melba Ketchum and anyone else involved, I welcome a response. The truth will always be accepted here. If anything I wrote is incorrect, please correct me. I will evaluate your comments and if warranted post an update immediately and apologize publicly.

I have no position on whether Bigfoot is ape or human, or if it's real or not real. I'm not trying to prove anything. I only care that what is put out as fact is accurate and truthful. If there's more data, release it and I'll make sure it gets into qualified hands that will give an unbiased analysis. 

**Edited out this section until I can find my initial copy of paper that shows the changes. I can't print something as fact without the proof to back it up. Until I find it,  I apologize for my mistake. **

(Note - this timetable has been edited out of the latest online version of Dr. Ketchum’s paper - “Novel North American Hominins.”)

Publication of a scientific research paper is supposed to be the final stage of that research project. What are the ethical implications of editing the paper without a change log? Does this fall on the journal or the author? Both?  

An Interview With Mike Rugg

A little about Mike Rugg from his website:

http://www.bigfootdiscoveryproject.com/

Michael Rugg is co-founder of the Bigfoot Discovery Project (BDP) and Curator of The Bigfoot Discovery Museum in Felton CA. The BDP accepts the subject of the Patterson/Gimlin Film as the type specimen for the Pacific Coast Bigfoot or Sasquatch and seeks to create a dialogue about the implications of the impending "discovery of bigfoot" by conventional Western science. They are currently designing the Bigfoot Discovery Museum, scheduled to open in the Santa Cruz Mountains of Central California in the Spring of 2004. Its purpose is to educate the public at large about the probability of bigfoot and the current best guesses as to its habits and its place in the natural world.

As a child, Rugg spent many weekends and holidays on fishing, camping and hunting trips with his parents throughout central and northern California (his father once owned a lumber mill in Garberville). His first bigfoot encounter may have happened on one of those occasions. He has been collecting information and artifacts--while studying unknown bipedal primates--since the early '50's, when the first photos of Yeti tracks on Mt Everest appeared in Western newspapers. Starting as a scrapbook of clipped articles, it grew into a collection of related books, images and miscellaneous memorabilia. Rugg has lived in Felton, next to one of the last stands of first growth redwoods left in central California, since he was 13.

While an undergraduate at Stanford he delved further into his bipedal primate research via the microfiche and dusty old stacks of the university library. In March of 1967, he wrote a paper for an anthropology class (at that point, a culmination of 16 years of study) stating that the "Abominable Snowman Question" deserved further scientific research, accompanied by a map highlighting Bluff Creek as the place to find one of the "unknown" primates right here in California. The professor was not convinced, but did give him a "C" rather than the "F" that he had promised when Rugg first told him the paper's subject and intent. (Note: the Patterson/Gimlin film was shot just seven months later right where the map predicted.) Unimpressed with academe and the closed-minded attitude of his would-be mentor, Rugg abandoned his plan to pursue a second major in Paleoanthropology, left school, and opened an art studio next to his brother's woodshop in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

　

1. Chris B: Mike, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to do this interview over the phone. It's an honor to have you and I know the members at the Bigfoot Forums feel the same way.

Q: First of all, we've all been concerned about your recent health scare my friend, How are you?

Mike Rugg: I'm better now, I've had to change a few things with my diet and they have me on some medication now but I feel good. I guess the years of excess, eating whatever I wanted, have finally caught up with me. A change was in order.

　

　

Q: What first got you interested in the Bigfoot subject?

Mike Rugg: I first became interested in the subject as a child. I had my first encounter/sighting in 1950, I was 4 years old. Since this was prior to any real media exposure about the creatures, the only people to have known about the creatures were the actual witnesses. So my interest came natural after my encounter.

　

2. Q: That's very exciting. Can you describe what the creature looked like?

Mike Rugg: I remember it was very large. I was just a small child but I remember that it was huge, broad shoulders, covered in dark hair. I got the impression I was looking at a large hairy man. I remember there was what appeared to be part of a shirt draped over it's shoulder. This was a very brief encounter, perhaps about a 3 count. My parents called me, I told them what I had seen and of course upon further investigation, it was gone.

3. Q: Everyone seems to have a different opinion as to what these creatures are. What do you think Bigfoot/Sasquatch may be?

Mike Rugg: I think we have a multifaceted event going on World wide. Simply because there are alot of different beings reported. I believe we only need to look to the fossil record to determine what they are.

The Yeti in Asia by description and by the observations of it's locomotion, appears to be a type of ape. Fossils from Gigantopithecus are found in Asia and well documented.

We also have the Orang Pendek reports in Sumatra. Sightings of a small hairy man like creature. In 2003, small human like fossils were discovered on the remote island of Flores in the Indonesian archipelago. This new species is called Homo floresiensis.

As for North America , we have Homo Heidelbergensis. And there is now evidence to suggest there was also some interbreeding taking place with some species of primitive man. Another thing, we have to keep in mind is that there are feral humans as well. There are those species of Homo Sapien Sapien that for whatever reason decided to abandon society and live in the wild. So again, I think we have a multifaceted event and it's happening World wide.

　

4. Q: There's been alot of discussion on the Bigfoot Forums about the Sierra Bigfoot shootings and also the Ketchum DNA study. Have you been following either of these and if so, what's your opinion?

Mike Rugg: Yes I've been following both and it seems to me that both are a bit volatile subjects for comment at the moment. About the only thought I would like to convey is let's wait and see.

5. Q: There seems to be two schools of thought to proving Bigfoot exists, kill or no-kill, which best describes your thoughts and why?

Mike Rugg: Well that's a no brainer. Whether ape or human why kill them? They could be studied in their own environment and we could learn far more about them if someone was to take a Dr Jane Goodall approach.

6. Q: What's your opinion on infrasound? Do you think Bigfoot uses infrasound?

Mike Rugg: I've read that there is scientific proof of infrasound. I've had people describe it to me. So I'm open to the concept they do have that type of ability.

7. Q: What will it take to prove to the scientific community that these creatures exist? What evidence is required?

Mike Rugg: I think some tissue in a lab, or perhaps a body part. Tissue that can be replicated would likely be great evidence. The labs are gonna have to rethink how they do their testing. Too many times samples have been disregarded because there was a "human factor" present in the results. They need to understand that these creatures may be human in part and they definitely need to stop throwing out samples that have this factor with the common claim of "specimen contamination". Just because there is a human factor present does NOT mean the specimen was contaminated at the time of collection. These creatures may very well have a human factor within their DNA and if so, so be it. We need to learn from the results and not throw them out.

8. Q: If Bigfoot was proven to exist tomorrow, what do you think our role as modern humans should be?

Mike Rugg: If they have a language and communicate, I think we should treat them as people. They should have all the normal rights and protections bestowed on them as anyone else has.

9. Q: But what if they're determined to be a species of great ape without any form of language?

Mike Rugg: In that case I think we should study them but from a distance. This would be the situation where someone could take the Dr Jane Goodall stance and study them at a distance, to learn from them but at the same time not intrude on them. I think that funding would finally become available for this type of approach. And that's what we're lacking at the moment, funding. We could do great things in my own research areas if only the funding were available.

10. Q: Any thoughts on the Erickson Project?

Mike Rugg: I'm hoping it will turn out to be something great. I've heard there may be around 40 clips with some in HD. I've not seen the clips personally but I hope they all turn out to be genuine. The clips need to be released together with the Ketchum DNA study. I am a bit concerned about some (one) of the individuals Mr Erickson has associated himself with. I would hope Mr. Erickson would not associate himself or his project with anyone that could take away from the credibility of this work.

11. Q: Mike, we spoke earlier of the Ketchum DNA Study that's still ongoing. I'll come right out and ask, is the tooth you found included in that part of the study?

Mike Rugg: I can say that there was some material collected from the tooth that is still in Dr Melba Ketchum's possession. From what I understand it will not be used in this study as the material collected from the tooth is more ancient and they wanted modern DNA samples. I currently have possession of the tooth now, but Dr Ketchum still retains the samples collected from it.

12. Q: What's the most convincing evidence for the existence of Bigfoot in your opinion?

Mike Rugg: I'd have to say the combined eyewitness testimony, the Patterson Gimlin film and the new DNA work being done.

Chris B: Once again thank you Mike for taking the time to do this interview. It was an honor to speak with you again my friend.

Mike Rugg: My pleasure. I also have some video interviews available on youtube, just type in "Bigfoot Discovery Museum".

Interview with Author and Paranormal Investigator Philip Spencer

Philip Spencer grew up in Anderson County, Kentucky, in the town of Lawrenceburg.
Blessed or cursed with an insatiable curiosity for everything, he has been seeking answers
to the mysteries of life, death and the paranormal since childhood. A 40 year veteran investigator, he has amassed a huge number of case files in his research of strange events that have occurred around the world. Bigfoot however, is one of the author's preferred areas of research as in Anderson County, Kentucky, there have been many sightings of the enigmatic creature known the world over. His first book, The Wildman of Kentucky, The Mystery of Panther Rock, entails these sightings and much more, taking the reader on a journey into the heart of the "Dark and Bloody Ground" one of the most active paranormal places in the nation also known as "The Frazier Land."

Philip Is currently writing a new book titled, "The Ghosts Of Anderson County" and is contemplating returning to Anderson County Kentucky to shoot a movie titled "Return To The Frazier Land".
Philip Spencer is the Author of "The Wildman Of Kentucky , The Mystery Of Panther Rock"
which can be found in book and DVD format and has worked with the TV show Monster Quest on The History Channel and recently can be seen in the NBC affiliate, WLEX-TV of Lexington Kentucky, presentation "The Bluegrass Bigfoot".
Philip has appeared on numerous radio shows worldwide. Philip is a investigative researcher in the world of strange animals and paranormal activity.

Philip, first I'd like to thank you for taking the time to do this interview. It's an honor to have you and I know the members at the forum feel the same way.

1. Q: What first got you interested in the Bigfoot subject?

Philip Spencer: Thank you Chris for asking me to do this interview. I was approximately nine years old, which would have been in 1960, and lived in the small town of Alton in Anderson County Kentucky when one morning I found a large strange track in a plowed field on our farm. It was a single track and only had three toes. It was near the middle of the field with no sign of any other track or the ground being disturbed anywhere in the field. It was a right foot and approximately 12 to 14 inches in length and was not of an unusable width.
I can still remember standing with my Stevens Crack Shot rifle on my shoulder and looking down at the track and then looking up and scanning the edges of the field and finally I looked up.
Years later when I discovered the internet I was able to contact Smokey Crabtree who also has seen three toed tracks and Stan Gordon who at one time had a picture of a three toed cast from his research area of Pennsylvania.
I now do not connect this three toed track I saw with Bigfoot. But I think this track was the catalyst for my lifelong obsession with strange animals.

2. Q: I know you're from Anderson County Kentucky, is this area known for Bigfoot sightings? Is there any particular area that these sightings seem more common?

Philip Spencer: In regards to Bigfoot sighting in Anderson County Kentucky you can visit kentuckybigfoot.com

and click on Anderson County and you will find 14 reports from Anderson County. Ten of the reports were taken by myself and I have 4 more that I am working on at this time.
I think there are several reasons that such a large number of sightings come from Anderson County. One is the fact I am accessible and listen to people and do not judge them. Second, Anderson County has everything Bigfoot could ever need. Remote areas with wandering streams and rivers and a food source any omnivore would desire. The waterways in Anderson County such as The Kentucky River and Salt River both have steep cliff sides that provide an instant getaway so that Bigfoot can put those big powerful legs to use and leave us standing around wondering “where did Bigfoot go?” as it escapes into the denseness of the thickly covered steep hillsides.

3. Q: Have you had a sighting of one of the creatures? If so, can you tell us a few details? (time of day, was it doing something? What did it look like?)

Philip Spencer: In the late summer or early fall of 1970 near the town of Glensboro in Anderson County Kentucky myself and my friend had a remarkable sighting. We both loved animals and loved to ride around out in the county late at night and see if we could see anything unusual or strange. We had a powerful spotlight that we plugged into the cigarette lighter and would scan the woods and fields and bottoms along the river to see what we could see.
It was approximately 2 P.M. and we were on Highway 44 just west of Glensboro and I was holding the light on the roof of the car and we rode along and I would shine the light into the fields on the right side of the car as Salt river ran through the area and deer and other animals were plentiful and we knew we would see something even if only deer.
Little did we know we would certainly see something other than deer.
As we got near the end of the stretch of road where we could see into the river bottoms I was shining my light as we crawled along and sweeping a large bend in the land where the river turned. I was seeing a large group of deer and as I swept the light I realized that something was wrong. I realized I had just seen some eyes that were out of place. They were at a much taller height that the deer and larger. I told my field to stop and as I swung the light back there he was. The creature was huge. I would say 8 feet tall and very powerful looking. It turned and started walking off in the direction of the valley where the river ran. It never ran, it never panicked. It briskly walked away and looked back over its right should twice in our direction. It came to an old fence in the field and just walked over it and never broke stride. The fence was maybe 3 to 4 feet tall and old. The creature kept walking and faded into the darkness of the river bottom and left us sitting there staring into the night and trying to grasp what we had just seen.
We were both extremely experienced outdoor guys and we just sat frozen in the car for a minute or so and then my friend looked at me and kind of smiled and said "what was that?"..He drove off and we actually never talked much about this sighting after that and he prefers to not talk about it at all for personal reasons.
The creature I saw was so powerful looking. Broad shoulders, tapering down to a smaller waist with long arms and very muscular legs. I could see the creature clearly but not clear enough to give exact specifics on fingers or face etc.
Oddly there is something that has stuck in my mind so prominently from that night for all these years and it was how the deer reacted. Even with something as monumental as a Bigfoot sighting what I saw the deer nearby do has caused me to give great thought to what they did.
For anyone who grew up in the country and were around chickens you will instantly understand what I am about to describe. In the field were maybe 30 deer and they were grazing and just looking around like deer do. When I spotted the Bigfoot with the light and he turned to walk away the deer did the strangest thing. The all moved at the same time and it was like chickens moving away from something at the same time. They did not panic or run fast, they just shuffled away almost like a circle. And then they stopped and went back to doing what deer do.
I believe Bigfoot eats deer but the deer did not seem terrified of this enormous creature near them (no more than 50 yards). So did they not know he was there? Could he have been down wind and slowly made his way to them? Why would they not sense something that was so close and was possibly looking for a meal?. Does Bigfoot prefer fawns and only in dire times kill the adults? These questions have haunted me for years and most likely will continue to do so.
In this same location several years later I had another encounter while on foot. Maybe next time for that one..

4. Q: What gear/equipment do you carry in the field on an investigation or outing? Any suggestions for new researchers on gear/equipment?

Philip Spencer: I try to always have my sample kit with me which has small plastic bags and large plastic zip lock bags as well as tweezers and a magnifying glass and of course a measuring device. I also have test tubes to put hair samples in if needed. A small notepad to write down info and a compass are good to have with you.
I always have several knifes with me and carry a pistol when in the woods. I am not really concerned with animals and needing the pistol as much as encountering people who just might require me to need my weapon. Better safe than sorry.
I also have a Nikon D3100 and a Sony SR-11 camcorder with me and my phone takes full HD video and has a 8 MP dual flash camera.
I own several trail cams which are always at whichever is my current research area in Kentucky and several audio recorders which are also at work in Kentucky just about year round.
Always have a small survival kit with you as you never know when something unexpected will happen and if you are unsure of how to make a fire then have something that will, this can also save your life.

I have access to many types of investigative equipment such as thermal and other visual detection equipment.

Your gear depends on many variables and also where you are and what you will be doing and how long you will be there. Give great thought to what you need before you go out as things can change rapidly in the outdoors and being ready can save your life.

Just remember if you find something or see something and have nothing to document what you saw or found then are you really doing research or just wandering around in the woods?

5. Q: Everyone seems to have different opinions about what these creatures are or may be, what do you think they may be?

Philip Spencer: Chris after all these years I still am not sure. The creature I saw, to me, was a flash and blood creature of enormous size. As to what this creature should be classified as?, ? well? Is it a relic hominoid related to what or who? Only time and study and hopefully a capture - analyze - release will tell us the answers to all the questions we all live with in our quest to understand this beautiful mystery known as Bigfoot.
Over and over in my mind I have been tortured with the thoughts of how can an animal of this size be so elusive? And even more so how with all the technology we have can we not have found this creature and been able to study and understand it.
Personally I have been told numerous stories by people who were in positions to know that the military has photos and videos and even satellite images of Bigfoot. One individual told me he saw the photos and to him the creature looked like a pre-historic man more so than what the common depiction most have in their minds of Bigfoot looks like. He said it was extremely strange looking at these images of several of the creatures in an area of Washington State. But all the individuals who have told me these stories have never been able to show me anything that I could see or hold in my hold for verification.

6. Q: On the Forum, there's been alot of discussion about the Sierra Bigfoot shootings and also the Ketchum DNA study. Have you been following either of these and if so, what's your opinion?

Philip Spencer: I have followed both and will say this. I am not someone who likes to assume anything and until the facts are laid out for everyone to see and discuss and review it is in my opinion best to let the work of Dr. Ketchum be done and laid out for everyone to see.
As for the Sierra shootings so much has been said and speculated on that it is hard for me to know what is what? When I read the story it made me feel so bad and if this actually happened it is a sad event. Hopefully in time solid facts will arise and we all will know the complete factual story. (more info may be available and I have just not seen it)

7. Q: There seems to be two schools of thought to proving Bigfoot exists, kill or no-kill, which best describes your thoughts and why?

Philip Spencer: I am a no kill advocate. I believe in capture, analyze, release. I do not like seeing animals held in cages or compounds for people to stare at. I understand that we as a species are extremely destructive and will kill off many species with little thought to the ramifications of what we are doing and some people try to save species by captive breeding.
But once people see that Bigfoot is real there will be a bounty on this amazing creature, more so than now, and I suspect a body will be taken for display. As per example what is said to have occurred with the Texas group. Alton Higgins declares Bigfoot killable and a body needed for study and out come the guns and the woods are filled with Bigfoot hunters looking to kill one just as fast as they can find one. Other groups are doing the same thing and in my opinion it is just ego gone wild and nothing more than one person or one group wanting to wear the tag of the person/group who killed Bigfoot for the betterment of Bigfoot ( the paradoxical paradox?).
I have been involved in a small group who very quietly have been working for over one year to capture Bigfoot. Never ever have we even thought of killing Bigfoot as we see no need to kill what we think is a subject from a very small group of creatures that are dwindling by the day. We have everything laid out and in place to do what is needed to capture and analyze then release. Killing one of the few remaining samples might not be the best idea for protecting the species.

8. Q: In your book and documentary, you refer to one individual as "X farmer" who owns property within the Frazier land. Has living in this area had any effect on him or his family? If so, can you tell us a little about it or any odd experiences they've had?

Philip Spencer: So many strange events happened to the family of the X-Farmer and he and his family suffered greatly from the events on their land even to the point of physical illness. The children were no longer allowed to go out and camp or have friends over for campouts and told to not go out at night. The adults were armed constantly and on edge and stressed out constantly. Large farm dogs with their faces cuts deeply found laying in the yard after a vicious fight the night before with a strange looking creature and one dog from the fight , which weighed approximately 100 Lbs was never seen again! Less than a mile away a 700 Lb cow came crashing threw a gate and as the elderly man and woman who owned the cow rushed out to see what was happening they found her with her ears ripped off to the bone and her right eye torn out and dangling and three large gasp marks in her back which looked similar to the smaller gashes on the dogs face which had 3 claws or talons or whatever?

I have often thought about this family and what they went through and how they wanted none of this to happen they just wanted to be a family and not have to deal with all the bizarre events that happened to them on their farm in the Frazier Land. Even after I wrote my book and detailed all that happened more events happened. Also numerous others in this area have had negative reactions due to strange events. One family even moved away from the area.
I think although Bigfoot is part of the events it is important to understand there were many more strange events that happened to the X-Farmer and his family and others in the area that were not Bigfoot related..

9. Q: What's your opinion on infrasound? Do you think Bigfoot uses infrasound? If so, any opinion on what it could be used for?

Philip Spencer: As for Bigfoot "using" infrasound I have no evidence that this is true. It seems that a perception is among many that Bigfoot uses infrasound as a type of defensive weapon, something to confuse people or maybe large predators until it can get away or as a warning signal.
I have listened to amazing stories of people telling how they encountered Bigfoot and were suddenly confused as if there was some kind of event happening that was making them unable to function and they associated this event with the sighting. But to my knowledge we have zero proof of this, we have great stories but zero hard facts.

Could Bigfoot make sounds in the infrasound frequency spectrum? Maybe? I have worked in the field with scientists from several schools and we were monitoring a valley and gathering information within the infrasound range. We were call blasting and we got a very distinct tree knock after one of the call blasts.
When the waveform data was analyzed for the time after we stopped call blasting and over the night they found a sound in the infrasound range that could not be explained, they had not seen anything like it before on the spectrum analyzer.

So what does this prove? It proves something made a strange sound in a remote valley where the same night a very distinct tree knock was heard. That’s all it proves.

10. Q: As a Kentuckian myself, I find it kinda funny that the scientists say "There's no such thing as black panthers in KY". So, as a quick question for our cryptozoologist members interested in large cats, Have there been any reports of large black cats in your investigation area?

Philip Spencer: Yes , in my book I tell of a friend of mines encounter with a large black cat in the Frazier Land. He was an avid outdoorsman and an animal lover and the large black cat he saw was not only large and black but rather strange in description. It ran low to the ground and had a very pronounced stomach. He said the tail looked very strange as it looped (curled ) much more than he said it should.
He encountered the big cat on a hillside path near the Kentucky River in an area known as Gilberts Creek.
Also if anyone would like to take a look at an unsolved animal track that some say is a big cat track, although it would be a huge cat that left the track, please visit my website www.philipspencer.net and click on the words "Mud Track" near the top and look over what is known as "The Frazier Mud Track". Experts from many fields have looked at this track and to this day no one is sure as to what made this track.

11. Q: If Bigfoot was proven to exist tomorrow, what do you think our role as modern humans should be?

Philip Spencer: Our roll as modern humans should be one of compassion and understanding however, the sad truth is we as a species are not all we should be and it will be like everything else, some will be compassionate and understanding and want to know everything about this mysterious wonderful creature and try to co -exist in a very hard world to do so in.
Some will want to capture the creature and put it on display and others will want to kill it and mount it over their fireplaces. That sadly is just how we are..

12. Q: Any thoughts or opinions on the Erickson Project?

Philip Spencer: I think we should all just sit back and let it speak for itself.

13. Q: Are there any particular times of the year that Bigfoot activity in your research area peaks?

Philip Spencer: October through April seems to be the time for peak activity in Kentucky. Not that activity will not happen year round but year after year the reports start rolling in about October and they sure have this year (2011). Charlie Raymond and myself are on the phone almost every day during this specific time of year discussing new reports and also going over all our investigations etc.

14. Q: What's the most convincing evidence of the existence of Bigfoot in your opinion?

Philip Spencer: At this time I think the cumulative evidence is the best evidence. Thousands of reports over the years from excellent witnesses who in numerous cases are trained observers. We have casts and videos and still images but those are not absolute verification, they are part of the cumulative information which is part of the information that is needed to not only further the study but also to help in solving this amazing mystery.

15. Q: I really enjoyed your DVD "The Wildman of Kentucky. The Mystery of Panther Rock." Are you working on any new projects that you can discuss briefly?

Philip Spencer: At this time due to health reasons everything is on hold in my research and work. I have enough material to do another movie and book in Anderson County Kentucky and hope to so soon. Also one of my monitored research areas in central Kentucky has recently (Oct & Nov. of 2011) started being very productive in some of the strangest events

16. Q: What advice would you give to new Bigfoot researchers?

Philip Spencer: Maybe consider bowling or collecting stamps J. Seriously though be prepared, think about what you are doing and be prepared. It is a captivating and engrossing research. You will be baffled and frustrated and at times want to surrender but you will carry on as trying to solve this mystery as it seems to get into a person's very soul, especially if you have had a sighting of this creature.

Be prepared to be "thick skinned" as they say dealing with those who ridicule and make fun of you but always know you are the one actually "trying" to accomplish something and if you ask the person who is ridiculing you what their research is, in most cases they have none.

If you are out in the woods and you have your camera and your recording device all set up and suddenly something happens, please please do not talk! So many great captures of audio have been over ridden by " What is that?!!" or "Did you hear that?!!"..Stay calm and get the information, after that, panic and talk and run into trees if you need to.

The beautiful mystery of Sasquatch has held tens of thousands of good people captive for many years and will continue to do so. I hope before I leave this life I know the answers to all the questions about this magnificent creature that have haunted me for all these years..

Philip is a member of the following groups:
Investigator With: Kentucky Bigfoot Research Group
Investigator With: American Bigfoot Society
Investigative Consultant With: Tri-State Bigfoot
Member Of: Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society
Member Of: Sasquatch Watch Of Virginia

Also Philip is the owner of Back River Productions A multi media company in Hampton Virginia and the company Memories Of Me . Also located in Hampton Virginia…For more information on Philip Spencer please visit: http://philipspencer.net/

Georgia History Professor tackles the topic of Bigfoot

Professor Jeffery Wells is a 10^th generation Georgian. Having grown up in the state, he is quite familiar with its terrain, geography, and history. He holds a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Georgia and a master’s degree in history from Georgia College & State University in Milledgeville. He is currently the social sciences and education department chairman for Georgia Military College’s Atlanta campus. He has published several articles on Georgia history in various magazines and newsletters, as well as penned chapters on the state’s history for Georgia history textbooks.
In his book Bigfoot in Georgia, Jeffery Wells explores the mystery of Bigfoot in the Peach state from the earliest Native American legends of the Creek and Cherokee tribes through the latest Bigfoot hoax. He covers encounters and reports throughout local history, the Elkins Creek cast, and the fascinating people who are searching for the elusive creatures in Georgia.

How did you become interested in the Bigfoot phenomena in Georgia and what led you to write a book on the topic?

Jeffery Wells: As a child, I was always interested in mysteries. I remember watching In Search Of hosted by Leonard Nimoy when I was much younger. In fact, I still have copies of them at home. Occasionally, I will watch them to recapture that spark for mysteries and legends that so inspired my youth. Perhaps it is why I chose to study history academically and teach it at the college level as a profession.  The reason for writing the book was that a student of mine years ago wrote one of his junior research papers on this topic in an academic writing class I taught. At that time, I had no clue that this creature might exist in Georgia.  I told him to go ahead, but that he should not be disappointed if he finds no evidence.  In fact, he found lots of evidence, including some great local sightings in that area.  He told me that I could keep the paper; unfortunately, I have lost it, but it was good and merited an A.  Years later, I discussed this paper with my college students. One challenged me to take the young man’s suggestion seriously. When I began my research, I was astonished at what I found.

Can you tell us about some of the evidence that you feel supports the idea that such a creature exists?

Jeffery Wells: It is very difficult to make a total assertion that Bigfoot exists in Georgia without a shadow of doubt. There is still some reservation in my mind; however, the collection of evidence is absolutely worth pausing over, and I have done that.  First, the Elkins Creek cast is without a doubt the crown jewel in Georgia.  In a broader context, the Patterson-Gimlin footage is certainly very close to a smoking gun.  Specific research done by scholars would include the work of Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and readers will recall that I interviewed him for the book.  Others would be Dr. Grover Krantz.  His theories and many of the prints he collected were very eye-opening.  But furthermore, the many sightings in history when word did not travel as well, and human civilization was not in the third wave (Technological Revolution/Information Age) and people were not able to read what happened across the country or planet as quickly as we are able to do today, are quite valuable.  In other words, it is amazing to read the sighting reports from the 1800s from places far away from each other and see how they are similar, all the while knowing that there was no way they could have been feeding off each other due to the unavailability of mass communication.

In your book, you relate stories and legends from Native Americans that are attributed to Bigfoot. Is it possible that these stories are simply social constructs and myths conjured by those tribes as a form of entertainment or do you feel there is a level of truth behind them and why?

Jeffery Wells: This is a very plausible question.  Of course there is the possibility that these stories are nothing more than yarns spun by our native ancestors to do just that.  While I am no expert on Native American culture, I do know more than the average person about their culture and way of life.  I am currently reading everything I can about those tribes in the Southeast in an attempt to understand them more.  However, one must pause when the legends are read and think about the many references that are made to what we know today may be Bigfoot behavior, i.e. wood-knocking, eating habits…  It is very true that humans in general throughout the ages have stories and legends that are no more than that.  Surely no one thinks that there are small humans in the Catskill Mountains or that a human can sleep unmolested for 20 years as Washington Irving wrote in his legendary tales. So it is true that every culture has its own share of legends and lore. However, it is also true that cultures have tried as hard as they could to explain their world and environment through stories and such when they lacked the scientific foundations to do so. Greek mythology, Native American stories, and African oral epics come to mind. So, it is very possible that these stories are just that in the Native American culture. My hesitation to dismiss them is that there are some amazing similarities to what Bigfoot researchers have now uncovered as possible behavioral patterns of the creature, if indeed that is what is out there.

If Bigfoot does indeed exist, what do you think these creatures are?

Jeffery Wells: I will speculate that they are an evolutionary oddball. What I mean by that is that they are a descendent of Gigantopithecus Blacki that somehow did not die out but made it through the evolutionary melee.  However, it must be noted that I am a Georgia historian and not an anthropologist or biologist. So I defer to men like Jeff Meldrum and the late Grover Krantz or John Bindernagel. I have read their work and find much in it to be noted.

Skeptics often cite such things as the lack of data in the fossil records for Bigfoot, the lack of recovered remains from natural or accidental deaths and the lack of any other verified biological evidence. They commonly assert that there are only footprints (questionable in source and nature) and anecdotal accounts or stories used to support the existence of these creatures. In your opinion, how could a population of these creatures exist and leave such seemingly scant evidence and virtually no environmental impact?

Jeffery Wells: To me this comes down to numbers. From what I understand from the research, and this is hypothesis mind you, there are not a lot of these creatures in any one environment, which may account for the lack of evidence.  There are other things that may be at play here. Perhaps they bury their dead, or destroy the remains. If these creatures are skillful and able to solve problems, then we have to assume that they realize that by leaving things behind they may invite trouble. I think of the sightings where the animals follow hikers or campers only to scare them, not harm them. The intent is to move them along and remove them from their environment.  I also think of the stories where these animals are said to be communicating with each other through wood-knockings and other devices.  I also think of the story where the creature was able to kill a skunk in the pipeline of a large irrigation system only to use the scent to cover his/her young so that it would not be so susceptible to attack by predators since the juvenile of the species would not be as able to defend itself as the adults would be.  These things represent problem solving skills to me. However, I fully understand the scientific community’s need to have a body or live specimen in order to get behind the idea that Bigfoot exists. I believe it is incumbent upon the Bigfoot researchers that are out there and are credible to continue to do what they can to bring in the evidence that will one day solve this mystery.

The Elkins Creek cast is a very well-known piece of purported evidence that Bigfoot does exist in Georgia. Why do you feel this single cast is so revered and what is the story behind its discovery and subsequent designation as “The Crown Jewel of Georgia Sasquatchery”?

Jeffery Wells: I cannot say enough about why this piece of evidence intrigues me.  I am not the only one who respects this piece of evidence.  In fact, and I mention this in the book, while interviewing Dr. Meldrum in January 2008 while writing the book, I asked him about the cast.  Steve Hyde of GeorgiaBigfoot.com has already mentioned to me that Meldrum had a great deal of respect for the cast.  So I asked him to clarify his thoughts on the cast.  He commented that it is one of less than a dozen pieces of evidence in North America that he feels have the strongest potential in proving the existence of a great ape in North America. Having said that, it is impossible to ignore this piece of evidence.  The story behind the cast is very interesting, and it is actually my favorite sighting/experience I wrote about.  A condensed version goes something like this:  An older gentleman in Pike County, Georgia lived near Elkins Creek, a small creek that springs from the Flint River.  Apparently, this was home to something that visited his mobile home and barn from time to time stealing dog food and other things.  The visits became more violent as whatever this was killed a few of his pets, threw tires in to trees, and would bang on the side of the mobile home.  At one point, the animal even walked alongside the outer wall of the trailer and assumed a position of either mocking or threatening the elderly man and his wife who were inside listening.  The old man had somewhat of a blunt personality, and as he had made reports to the Pike County Sheriff’s Department before about these events, many did not take him seriously.  James Akin, who was a deputy sheriff at the time, was sent to investigate.  The old man took him down to Elkins Creek where he made plaster casts of one of the prints. It was quite large, and seeing it convinced Akin that this could be the real deal.  His interest in the mystery deepened after that point.  Akin had friends who encouraged him to send the cast to Meldrum and Krantz for investigation.  The rest, as they say, is history.  The cast is so important because of its size and perceived authenticity.  It also showed that the animal making the prints was more than likely older, for the bottom of his foot had very little fat on it. Perhaps it was even starving, which might explain the drastic measures it took to procure food at the home of the older man on Elkins Creek.

During your research for the book, you met with several field researchers and investigators involved in the search for Bigfoot in Georgia. What was your impression of these people and did you observe any common personality traits between them?

Jeffery Wells: For the most part, the researchers I met were very inquisitive, positive people.  In particular, I was quite impressed with Dr. Meldrum, Matt Pruitt, Steve Hyde, Wayne Ford, and the researcher identified as Ranger in the book.  These men were very intelligent, thought critically, and took their subject seriously. I will say, however, that I was more than once privy to the competitive nature of various organizations. Then again, no discipline lacks that. 

What has been the response of your academic peers regarding your interest in Bigfoot and your subsequent book on the topic?

Jeffery Wells: For the most part, the response has been supportive. However, very few of my peers have commented on this work, and I rarely go to them for that commentary. It is not that I do not respect them, for I do. But I would rather have feedback from those who have spent a large part of their lives studying this subject and tracking what they think is the most elusive creature on the planet.

Do you have any future plans to write another book on the topic of Bigfoot?

Jeffery Wells: One can never tell.  That will depend on the demand from the readers. My area of expertise is Georgia history and myth and legend.  I am now working on a joint project with a fellow English professor about another Georgia mystery-this one focuses on a different creature (or what was perceived as one).  We are just now in the research phase, so this work will not be out for another year or so.  However, I could see myself doing a follow-up.  I have long been interested in doing a book on the men and women who search for Bigfoot. Perhaps there is a demand for such a work. I am just proud to be the first author to publish a serious work on the subject of Bigfoot in Georgia.  It is with great pleasure that I did so and continue to engage those who have read my work and want to know more about it.

Visit Professor Wells' blog at  Georgia Mysteries and for more information on the history of Bigfoot sightings in the Peach State, pick up a copy of his fascinating book: Bigfoot in Georgia