David Hatcher Childress Returns

[J.T.]

A superb show. This was a much, much better episode than the first one with DHC. It was also very nice to hear a more conversational show where both Nick and Chris took turns relaying their experiences and opinions. I personally much prefer that to a strict question & answer session. DHC specifically asked Nick questions and he gave good answers that illuminated the subject. Chris did the exact same thing when prompted to share his experiences. Gene provided many good questions and a great sense of humor.

I realize DHC's credibility and critical faculties are not the greatest, but he was focused, relayed stories he had heard (some of which were new to me) he did not take the paranormal route but stuck to the big ape thesis and backed it up with fairly clear reasoning (yes, he drifted off a few times, but most people I know do that and it didn't seem intentional). His answer to the telepathic bigfoot questions were sharp and reasonable, and I liked how he tied it to experiences people have with their pets, without suggesting that he believes it, but as an explanation for those who claim such connections. An answer I could imagine even the ever-polite Loren Coleman coming out with.

For anybody listening the show with reservations, it gets better as it goes along. There's a small section where the show goes into some wild -- but entertaining -- speculation that had me worried for a moment, but none of it goes off the rails. Bigfootery does, despite being one of the more grounded fields in Forteana, have its share of high strangeness, and you should note even the off-the-wall anecdotes for a full view. I would have been interested in Nick's take on those stories too, given his wide-ranging interests.

I'm in the Fortean middle camp on the squatch subject, though the large amount of credible witness reports, footprints, unattributable hair samples (not to mention the native american legends) in a field riddled with hoaxery makes me lean towards the camp that thinks this is a real creature. I would be interested in future cryptozoo shows.

 

[pixelsmith]

I saw the minnesota iceman long ago at a local fair. it was difficult to see anything really because they shuffled us in and out very quickly.

peeping bigfoots?.. they like to watch people having sex? riiight...

 

[J.T.]

Yeah, I think he stressed it a bit too much, but it DOES go with the oft mentioned curiosity factor of squatches:

Most field researchers will recommend behaving like regular campers/hikers, to be active in a positive non-threatening manner: singing, laughing, talking loudly. Many sightings occur when somebody leaves said group to go and take a leak, for example. Coming back they come across something observing the group, with their attention distracted by camp activity. So it does go along that theory….

 

[pixelsmith]

Yeah, I think he stressed it a bit too much, but it DOES go with the oft mentioned curiosity factor of squatches:

Most field researchers will recommend behaving like regular campers/hikers, to be active in a positive non-threatening manner: singing, laughing, talking loudly. Many sightings occur when somebody leaves said group to go and take a leak, for example. Coming back they come across something observing the group, with their attention distracted by camp activity. So it does go along that theory….

I doubt those type of stories, if bigfoot existed and was watching a group, he would be WELL AWARE of any individuals leaving the camp and taking a leak. I believe a bigfoot would be well aware of any and all larger living creatures for at least a half mile radius of his domain or position in the woods.

 

[CapnG]

Interesting episode (my question got answered ) but people are catagorically NOT getting shorter over time, quite the opposite.

Go to europe, David. Go to the orient. Look at the older residential buildings. See how low the doors are built? I rest my case.

 

[NTS]

I agree, CapnG, although in fairness to Childress he does say we're taller than people were a few hundred years ago because of better nutrition etc. His claim is that there were "giants" several thousand years ago.

 

[CapnG]

I agree, CapnG, although in fairness to Childress he does say we're taller than people were a few hundred years ago because of better nutrition etc. His claim is that there were "giants" several thousand years ago.

The fossil record would disagree. Proto-humans were all small creatures, it's not until you get to more recent hominids where you find taller beings.

 

[dyingsun]

Hm, recent 'Neanderthal' findings figured one of them was about 1,80 cm. Still not huge, but tell that to some creationists.

 

[CapnG]

Hm, recent 'Neanderthal' findings figured one of them was about 1,80 cm. Still not huge, but tell that to some creationists.

That's nearly 6 foot. If you're a 4' 6" Homo Sapiens that's pretty big...

 

[dyingsun]

Ape men were probably our ancestors ? The six foot one was probably their king.

 

[CapnG]

Ape men were probably our ancestors ?

If you mean Neanderthals then no. Current thinking is that while interbreeding would have certainly been possible they offspring would most likely have been sterile (like mules).

 

[dyingsun]

If you mean Neanderthals then no. Current thinking is that while interbreeding would have certainly been possible they offspring would most likely have been sterile (like mules).

No, I know they(Neanderthals that is) went into the extinction branch of the tree, they did have all the 'tools' to be successful in the grander darwinian scheme of things.

 

[xLordSummerislex]

I've not finished listening to this yet, but am enjoying it so far, though think he got the bit about humans interbreeding with apes wrong- we're way closer related to chimps than oran utans but don't think we can reproduce with either. There have allegedly been attempts in the past to produce hybrids- Stalin apparently was keen on having ape/human hybrid troops but the program was unsuccessful.
As an aside- and anyone of a sensitive disposition may wish to stop reading now- a couple of my friends visited primate sanctuary, and they'd a female oran-utan there who'd been rescued from a brothel in Indonesia
Zana (the alleged ape women captured in Central Asia) and her son's skulls have been analysed, along with DNA test and although there are certain unusual morphological features, they all fall in the range for modern humans, so she may have had some congential disorder to account for unusual hairiness. I've seen pictures of her son and grand daughter and they don't look unusual, maybe a bit more like Australian aborigines than you'd imagine people from the area might look like, but certainly not ape like. More info here:
Zana - squatchopedia.com - All things bigfoot and sasquatch

 

[Biednycomehome]

Interesting show, but was kind of disappointed with the "backyard bigfoot" reference/story. This picture has been proven nothing more than a bird by the bird feeder/tripod. There are even other photos with the same bird on the ground, with the "boogyman" gone.

cognative dissonance anyone?

There very well may be evidence out there for bigfeet, but this isn't it.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/fairdale-kentucky-backyard-bigfoot-photo-revisited/

 

[Apocalypto]

Interesting show, but was kind of disappointed with the "backyard bigfoot" reference/story. This picture has been proven nothing more than a bird by the bird feeder/tripod. There are even other photos with the same bird on the ground, with the "boogyman" gone.

cognative dissonance anyone?

There very well may be evidence out there for bigfeet, but this isn't it.

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/fairdale-kentucky-backyard-bigfoot-photo-revisited/

LOL. Nice. I guess the Bigfoot story was for the birds.

 

[xLordSummerislex]

I've finally finished listening to this, it was enjoyable and I'll probably get round to picking up the book. I've heard that story about the dead bigfoot being picked up on Mt St Helens a few times before, I think it was dissected on Cryptomundo at some point, there was something dubious about it, can't track the post down just now, but leaving aside the issue of the bigfoot, I think some of the details given didn't add up (in the sense of timings, locations and procedures). Would the National Guard remove the bodies of dead wild animals in the aftermath of a forest fire? I'll post it if I find it.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

I cried throughout this entire episode, but indeed, it was better than the Moon civilization podcast. In the end it did make me ponder the existence of these types of cryptozoological entities, but I am most onboard with the thought that they're natural creatures. Even hunting ghosts like I do, I'm not big on the whole psychic or metaphysical connection such as the story of a bigfoot pulling another bigfoot out of the ground, as if one were phasing. That I just simply do not believe.

At least I didn't get sick to my stomach at the end of this podcast like I did the last time DHC was on. BTW, is it just me or does he (DHC) sound like A) Jeff Goldblum after he's smoked some weed, and B) like he's doing push-ups, sit-ups, or jumping jacks while he's being interviewed?

 

[Capnkumquat]

I enjoyed the episode, that said, there were several patently false statements given on the show.

1. It is unlikely that man could breed with an ape of any sort. The whole point behind species is that breeding generally stops outside of ones species due to (a) lack of interest (b) genetic change leading to an inability to breed. There are a few noted exceptions to this in the animal kingdom, but they are exceptionally rare and usually leave sterile offspring. (Lions/Tigers for you Napoleon Dynamite fans, and Horses/Mules).

Wikimedia Error

2. Man in the past was larger. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days...this and other religious texts are some of the only "evidence" that can be really be provided as the fossil record doesn't really show much of anything approaching giants. Sure there have been mistaken mastodon bones, mistaken dino tracks for Noah's raven, etc...but no real evidence for giants in the earth.

Here is a quick read from Archeology magazine about giants, hoaxes, and misinterpretation. When Giants Roamed the Earth
Mr. Childress needs to get his head out of books of religion and go to books of science when he wants to learn about science!...of course the science books would dissuade him from his outlandish ramblings, so I'm sure he'll decline.

3. You never find dead animals in the woods is the reason we never find evidence of bigfoot...really? On my property, I have found antlers, teeth, jawbones (usually gnawed on by mice who find them first). When I was an avid backpacker I found a dead deer in a creek that was unfortunately upstream from where I had filled my water bottles...I filled them again. People who spend time in the woods, can regularly find evidence of death. If I were to follow every circling group of buzzards, I could find lots of "evidence".

If archeologists can find million year old bones, thousands of year old mummies, and everything in between...I'd have to say the phenomenon is either "non physical", misinterpretation, or even weirder than I can speculate. I don't claim to know.

 

[FletcherMunson]

Mr. Childress needs to get his head out of books of religion and go to books of science when he wants to learn about science!...of course the science books would dissuade him from his outlandish ramblings, so I'm sure he'll decline.

And Star Wars movies. When he lumped Chewie in with other (supposedly) true stories about Bigfoot-human interaction, I actually looked at my iPod in total disbelief. I don't know what I expected my iPod to do about DHC's bizarre thought process... I just... didn't... know where else to turn at that point...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I enjoyed the episode, that said, there were several patently false statements given on the show.

1. It is unlikely that man could breed with an ape of any sort. The whole point behind species is that breeding generally stops outside of ones species due to (a) lack of interest (b) genetic change leading to an inability to breed. There are a few noted exceptions to this in the animal kingdom, but they are exceptionally rare and usually leave sterile offspring. (Lions/Tigers for you Napoleon Dynamite fans, and Horses/Mules).

Wikimedia Error

2. Man in the past was larger. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days...this and other religious texts are some of the only "evidence" that can be really be provided as the fossil record doesn't really show much of anything approaching giants. Sure there have been mistaken mastodon bones, mistaken dino tracks for Noah's raven, etc...but no real evidence for giants in the earth.

Here is a quick read from Archeology magazine about giants, hoaxes, and misinterpretation. When Giants Roamed the Earth
Mr. Childress needs to get his head out of books of religion and go to books of science when he wants to learn about science!...of course the science books would dissuade him from his outlandish ramblings, so I'm sure he'll decline.

3. You never find dead animals in the woods is the reason we never find evidence of bigfoot...really? On my property, I have found antlers, teeth, jawbones (usually gnawed on by mice who find them first). When I was an avid backpacker I found a dead deer in a creek that was unfortunately upstream from where I had filled my water bottles...I filled them again. People who spend time in the woods, can regularly find evidence of death. If I were to follow every circling group of buzzards, I could find lots of "evidence".

If archeologists can find million year old bones, thousands of year old mummies, and everything in between...I'd have to say the phenomenon is either "non physical", misinterpretation, or even weirder than I can speculate. I don't claim to know.

Really good points Underdog. He was quite hard to listen to without cringing at the lack of critical thinking. As long as he can sell his books, he'll say whatever he has to say.