Interview with Jeff Meldrum

We are very honored to welcome for this interview the leading scientist on wildmen issue. Dr Don Jeffrey « Jeff » Meldrum is an expert on foot morphology and locomotion, teaching anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University.

Alongside his academic studies on evolution,  and locomotion of ancient humans, Dr Jeff Meldrum has always sought to combine the scientific method with the field research carried out by professionnals and amateurs alike to advance our knowledge of the phenomenon of wild men. This is also the title of his work published in 2007 Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. 

His open-mindedness and his scientific rigor have not only earned him friends, both among institutions and among bigfoot enthusisats. We thank him for his determination to go on working on what we think is the most important anthropological controversy of our time. 

Dr Jeff Meldrum edits the Relict Hominoid Inquiry undoubtedly the only refereed journal devoted to the study of this question.

  

Could you explain us how you came to study mysterious primates, how did you cross the sasquatch path?

My childhood interests certainly influenced my eventual career path. From an early age, I was interested in natural history and zoology, particularly the primates. I eventually pursued physical anthropology with an emphasis in locomotor anatomy in the human fossil record. I focused on the interpretation of fossil skeletal remains, which depended on inferences based on the study of living primates. This included the careful examination of fossilized hominin footprints. So I was in the somewhat uncommon position of having particular expertise to bring to bear on the analysis of footprints attributed to sasquatch, not to mention the locomotor anatomy of an alleged non-human bipedal primate. As it happened, my first personal exposure to the footprint evidence came in the form of a long line of 15-inch footprints that were shown to me by Paul Freeman of Walla Walla, Washington. This encounter is described in detail in my book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.The freshness and clarity of these prints was exceptional, affording an opportunity to carefully examine and evaluate this purported evidence. 

What would you answer to someone asking why people are still believing in Bigfoot ?

Many people are convinced that sasquatch exist based on their own personal experiences with the species, e.g. a visual encounter or footprint discovery. Others are persuaded by the testimony of witnesses, or their personal consideration of the evidence that has been publicized. The possibility, even the probability, of the existence of sasquatch and other relict hominoids is credible within the context of current science. We now recognize that the hominoid, more specifically the hominin family tree is extremely bushy, with many parallel contemporaneous lineages in the past and several extending much further towards the present than would have been thought possible say just 20 years ago. If one stepped into a time machine and went back just 30,000 years one might encounter any of a half a dozen species of upright ipedal hairy hominin. So, why is it so difficult to acknowledge the possibility that some of these lineages have persisted into the present in remote corners of the globe, or even in our own backyard here in North America ?

The bottom line is their rarity. As a large-bodied hominoid, parameters of their natural history include low population numbers, relative solitary behavior, low reproductive rate, slow development (a factor of large brain size), relatively long life span ( estimated 45-60 years). They would seem to have a very generalized diet and are far-ranging, with home range estimated at 1000 square miles. Now take or example in my state of Idaho there are an estimated 35,000 black bear. Consider how rare an encounter with a bear is without baiting and hunting with dogs. Also consider how rare to find the skeletal remains of a bear (life span 20-25 years).  In contrast, I estimate sasquatch in Idaho number between 150-300. Think about the 100-200-fold greater rarity of encounters or remains, even without factoring in the other natural history variables.

According to your research, what could be this creature ?

As mentioned, the hominin family tree gets busier and busier with additional discoveries. The fossil record may yet conclusivly reveal an ancestor. That is the best candidate ancestor for sasquatch, or other relict hominoids. Of those species currently known in the fossil record, Gigantopithecus and Paranthropus possess, distinctive robust chewing adaptations of the jaws and teeth, which seem to be very similar to attributes described for sasquatch. A side-by-side comparison between the relatively complete skull of the Paranthropus boisei, and the figure depicted on the Patterson-Gimlin film reveals remarkable correlation.

Those same robust features of Paranthropus are found in the more meager fossil remains, jaws and teeth of Gigantopithecus blacki. Gigantopithecus is the right size, in the right place, at the right time, to be a possible ancestor. However, we are uncertain of its posture and locomotion, i.e. whether it was bipedal. Paranthropus was bipedal, but lived in Africa, earlier, and was under 5 feet tall. However, there is precedent for such a species to expand its range out of Africa, across Asia, and potentially attain gigantic proportions, as did so many mammal species during the Pleistocene. 

Walla Walla County, Washington, is located in the Blue Mountains known for its numerous Bigfoot sightings. This sequence of footprints was first studied by Grover Krantz: : “Anyone who might have faked these tracks faced the usual problems of getting to the sites unobserved, with the equipment that not only made the footprints but also impressed them so deeply (in most cases), made each of the prints unique and showing flexible foot movements, and left no evidence of his own presence. That faker also was an expert at dermatoglyphics who was able to include the appropriate amount of absolutely accurate friction-skin detail on a reasonable number of footprints. In spite of all this, some skeptics still think that Paul Freeman was able to accomplish this feat. I think not, and raise just one more point. We might ask a simple question, if he has somehow been faking these tracks, why has never again matched the quality of the specimens that appeared in 1982?”

Left, footprints analysed by Grover Krantz, right comparison between primates and Bigfoot, by Jeff Meldrum

Do you think we could still improve the way we study footprints to set some identification, authentification protocol ?

I have studied and published about the footprints extensively. It is trace evidence. It is clear, as my predecessor Dr. Grover Krantz likewise concluded, that this question will only be resolved with a physical specimen, regardless of the persuasiveness of the footprint record. So yes, I think we can do more to archive and disseminate repeated persistent examples of footprint evidence, which bolsters the case for the existence of sasquatch, but alone will not constitute a conclusive argument for most skeptics, academic or novices. Footprints tell us a great deal: the presence of the individual, its preferred habitat/distribution, ranging patterns of recognizable individuals, whether alone or in company of others, approximate size and age and health, range of sexual dimorphism, dermatoglyphics and general anatomy indicate a primate, functional adaptations of the foot to mode of locomotion.

I have assigned a nomen to the footprints attributed to sasquatch, and with that a description and diagnosis, which distinguishes them from other such footprints . The adaptations of the sasquatch foot are elegantly appropriate for a large bipedal hominoid. The retention of a modified flat flexible foot, with a « midtarsal break » affords exceptional maneuverability in steep uneven terrain. The presence of these adaptations in historical footprints attributed to sasquatch anticipated subsequent discoveries about hominin foot evolution by decades.

 

More details can be found in Dr Meldrum’s original article here

Regarding scientific research, where are we now ? We lived some kind of scientific fever in the 2010 ‘s with such characters as Melba Ketchum and Brian Sykes, What remains of it today?

Unfortunately, the examples of Melba Ketchum, and Brian Sykes turned out to be very disappointing and distracting ones, each in different ways. I am hopeful, that the standard of objective evidence accumulating through the efforts of conscientious citizen scientists will keep interest focused on this question. I sense a new generation of more open-minded and curious academicians, young and old, who have taken an interest in this subject. This development reflects a changing attitude. New Scientist, a British science magazine, recently listed the potential survival of relict hominoids as one of the top ten questions in the study of human evolution.

A pressing concern that I share with other serious investigators is the rise of subjective paranormal interpretations of the sasquatch question. Many who find naturalistic explanations wanting, or who are frustrated by the challenge of identifying conclusively, an extremely rare and elusive species, such as sasquatch, have turned to paranormal explanations to account for them. As with the poor scholarship of Melba Ketchman and Brian Sykes, this infatuation with the supernatural is mostly distracting rather than seriously detrimental.