Dave: I know you were lucky enough to see Dr. Meldrum’s bigfoot cast collection. Would you care to share your observations of his collection?

Matt: Yeah, that was very cool. I simply asked if I could see the “Onion Mountain” (CA-19) cast and he said yes. Jeff Meldrum is a very approachable guy. But once inside his lab, he opened only one drawer containing, I think, six casts. Those were the only ones I examined and photographed. These were casts, or cast copies, of the Blue Creek Mountain — Onion Mountain tracks cast by John Green. While Jeff Meldrum told me they were the originals, Rick Noll suggested they were copies. I tend to believe what I saw were copies. Several of the casts I saw contained ridges that I believe were casting artifacts, but again, until the issue of original vs. copy is resolved, I can’t be sure of that.

I suspect the Blue Creek Mountain — Onion Mountain track ways are hoaxes to begin with, probably by Ray Wallace and/or his associates. My belief is based on the morphology of the known Wallace prosthetic, and the “monolithic margin” exhibited in some of the tracks. The “monolithic margin” is a smooth, unbroken arc at the leading edge of a track at grade that reflects the lack of a full gap between the toes in a Wallace style prosthetic. Real toes on real feet create tracks that exhibit a scalloped leading margin. If you don’t believe me, go for a walk on the beach and prove it to yourself.

Why did I, a relative bigfoot newbie, notice this damning flaw, and seasoned Bigfooters did not? Well it tells me that the bigfoot advocates really don’t investigate the hoax hypothesis very well. To this day, Chris Murphy claims that the in-line nature of the Blue Creek Mountain track way is anomalous, but in fact, it is perfectly consistent with a fabricated track way made by a man bounding along wearing foot prosthetics. My own tests with rigid and flexible prosthetics show this quite clearly.

You see, the bigfoot advocates have an image problem. They want to be seen as the next Charles Darwin, or Dian Fossey, and hate the Weekly World News treatment that the subject of bigfoot often gets. So, the subject must be discussed in the most dignified of terms. Watch and listen carefully when these people get on TV. They speak of the “target species” or “this animal.” Dignity is to be maintained at all costs.

Speaking from experience, strapping on fake feet to see what they can do makes one feel like a clown. I suspect that’s what is really at the root of this ignorance, the fear of looking or feeling foolish. Once you do it, you will understand how ridiculously easy it is to fabricate tracks, and therefore how ambiguous tracks are as evidence for bigfoot.

I’m fairly sure the Blue Creek Mountain — Onion Mountain tracks were hoaxed to begin with, and I’m quite sure the surface textures are casting artifacts.

Dave: You shared with me that you have resigned from SRI and AIBR. What is your opinion of both of these organizations now and what is your take on those who are still trying to prove the existence of bigfoot?

Matt: Oh, I have a high opinion of both organizations, and the people involved. I did not leave because of any kind of personal conflict whatsoever. I applaud the intelligent and curious attitude that the people within these organizations have.

That said, what we see in these organizations is the very problem that has plagued the field for so many years now — this incessant preoccupation with second-rate evidence. The collection of anecdotes into databases comes to mind. The problem is, no matter how many anecdotes you obtain, you still don’t have a body! I also think the whole “call blasting” thing is a waste of time, and it is disturbing to me to see people that I personally know to be smart participating in it. The recent coyote discovery by Tom Steenburg and Gerry Matthews should be a huge wake-up call to all those engaged in “call blasting”, but emotions prevail, and I’m sure we are going to continue to see questionable recordings promoted as Sasquatch “vocalizations” for a long time to come. As an aside, I have personally heard a “vocalization” very similar to one recorded by Matt Moneymaker in Ohio while I was camping in Western Washington. Therefore, I can understand the emotional component that would drive an interest in “call blasting.”

Personally, if I were to involve myself seriously, I’d start investigating the techniques of paleontology and “taphonomy”, the study of what happens to bodies after they die. I’m not at all convinced that we shouldn’t expect to find bones in the wilderness. Although I’ve never spent a great deal of time in the wilderness, I’ve personally found bones on three occasions. The second time, ironically, was in Ape Canyon! We were able to find “Kennewick Man;” we should expect to be able to find “Kennewick Bigfoot”, if indeed this animal is out there.

I think it is also worthwhile to figure out a field expedient way of differentiating animal hairs by species. This falls under a discipline known as “trichology.”

I doubt any of this will happen, though….

Dave: What would it take for you to get interested and involved in the bigfoot field again?

Matt: The discovery of a carcass or independently vetted bones. Of course, if someone came forth with an hour of close-up, broadcast quality video of a bigfoot giving birth, or throwing an elk against a tree, I’d probably be interested again!

Dave: What in your opinion “hooks” people into the bigfoot field and makes them so passionate about the subject?

Matt: That’s a very good question! Another good question is why there are no African American Bigfooters! Indeed, these are fundamental questions, and ones often not talked about.

I can’t speak for others, but I can at least identify components of my own interest. As a child, I used to be more or less obsessed with the Ape Canyon story. I think I also incorporated elements of the Star Trek episode The Galileo Seven into my mental picture of that account. These stories incorporated fear, but in a unique way; in both stories the participants are stranded and must fight the battle alone, far from the safety of the civilization. In the daytime, I would be fascinated with the possibility of bigfoot. At night, I would fear bigfoot!

As I’ve grown older, my interest turns more into wonder and mystery, as I no longer fear bigfoot. The Patterson film, whether a real Sasquatch or not, clearly instills a profound sense of wonder.

Why do people like to watch or play baseball? Why is Bender on Futurama so endearing? Why do people like funny car drag races? These are fundamental emotional questions. Either at some point, you simply “get it” or you don’t. I’m one of those that “got it” as far as bigfoot goes.

Dave: What is your take on all the eyewitness accounts of bigfoot over the years? Can they all be written off to misidentification and overactive imaginations?

Matt: That’s a very good question, and one for which skeptics have not provided particularly good alternative explanations. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that I am unable to conclude, with any vigor, that there is no Sasquatch. If there is no bigfoot, then what are these people seeing? I can’t give you a solid answer. However, Bigfooters are often averse to thinking of the subject of bigfoot as lying along a continuum, which indeed it is. Why stop with bigfoot? What are people seeing when they report El Chupacabras? Is that a real animal? OK then, how about Mothman? Lots of anecdotal accounts there too! Why stop there? What about Loren Coleman’s “Merbeings” or his “Fence Fiend.” The Dover Demon? My point is, people report seeing all kinds of really weird stuff, most of which is probably mistaken.

I personally know and respect, people who claim to have seen a Sasquatch. Scott Herriott and Craig Woolheater come to mind. I know them to be intelligent, levelheaded people. I don’t dismiss what they report experiencing out of hand.

The bottom line for me is this; I don’t know these people are mistaken. If they are mistaken, I don’t know how they are mistaken. I do, however, think that Bigfootery has done a poor job of acknowledging the reality of false memory. It’s possible that some faulty accounts may be due not to misperception at the time of the event, but to a false memory of the event.