Virginia Foot

"Authorities said that a foot found on Saturday in a Spotsylvania County landfill was not human after all. A search for a body through 127 tons of trash at the Livingston Landfill was called off Monday morning after state medical examiner's office cleaned and X-rayed the foot and determined it was not human but possibly that of an apelike species, Spotsylvania County Sheriff Howard Smith said." - Source NBC 4, Virginia

Foot ‘looks like bear’s hind paw’
BY KIRAN KRISHNAMURTHY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Thursday, February 15, 2007FREDERICKSBURG — The apelike foot found in a Spotsylvania County landfill still has folks scratching their heads.

Spotsylvania Sheriff Howard Smith said yesterday that he plans to send the foot to an as-yet-undetermined expert for further examination. “So we can find out what it is,” he said.

Already, word of the find is making the rounds on Internet sites dedicated to Bigfoot sightings and theories.

William M. Dranginis, who operates the Virginia Bigfoot Research Organization, has offered to have DNA samples, if he can obtain them, tested by experts, including renowned primatologist Jane Goodall. Dranginis said he has already made arrangements with Goodall in case an unidentified creature is ever found.

“You prepare for this,” he said in a phone interview yesterday.

Goodall has said she is certain Bigfoot creatures exist in nature.

“Dr. Goodall is curious and keeps an open mind on the subject,” Nona Gandelman, a spokeswoman for the Jane Goodall Institute in Arlington, said yesterday, adding that Goodall was traveling and not immediately available for comment.

Dranginis, who has viewed photographs of the foot found in Spotsylvania, said it resembles a bear’s skinned hind paw. Authorities say the foot, which appeared sawed off above the ankle, is about 8 inches long.

“That would be relatively small even for an adolescent Bigfoot,” said Dranginis, who has been on a quest since spotting what he described as a Bigfoot creature in Culpeper County in 1995.

“There’s big bucks in bear poaching,” said the 48-year-old Manassas man. In Virginia, bear-hunting season runs for specified periods from mid-October to early January, depending on the locality and the weapon to be used.

Authorities initially thought the foot might belong to a human and that it might be evidence of a homicide. Workers found the appendage Saturday afternoon in the treaded tracks of a bulldozer used to move garbage at one of the county’s landfills.

Three dozen searchers — sheriff’s deputies and volunteers from the fire and rescue departments — sifted through half of a 127-ton load of fresh garbage looking for more body parts.

Authorities halted the search Monday morning after receiving word that the state medical examiner’s office in Richmond determined the foot belonged to an apelike species, based on the bone structure revealed through X-rays. At the time, the sheriff said he considered the case pretty much closed unless someone came forward with information.

Yesterday, Smith said he plans to send the foot for testing after it is returned from the medical examiner’s office. Arkuie Williams, a spokesman for the medical examiner’s office, said officials there are still doing further investigation. He would not say what tests are being performed but reiterated, “It’s not human.”
Kiran Krishnamurthy
The Richmond Times-Dispatch

Not ape's foot but bear's paw in dump
Va. lab makes conclusion; Spotsylvania sheriff says he will not investigate further
BY KIRAN KRISHNAMURTHY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, February 21, 2007

FREDERICKSBURG -- The hunt for Virginia's Bigfoot goes on.

Authorities said yesterday that the foot found in a Spotsylvania County landfill belonged to a bear.

Spotsylvania Sheriff Howard Smith said the state laboratory in Richmond made the determination after further investigation, including consulting an anthropologist, of the mystery.

Officials initially had thought the appendage, about 8 inches long and hairless, found Feb. 10 by landfill workers might be a human foot and evidence of a homicide. They searched half of a 127-ton load of fresh garbage but halted the search because, Smith said, the medical examiner had determined the foot belonged to an apelike species.

Several outside observers, including anthropologists, primatologists and even Bigfoot enthusiasts, had said they believed the foot was the skinned hind foot of a bear.

Smith, laughing, would not comment on initial speculation about a Spotsylvania Sasquatch but said he was relieved that the mystery was solved. "I'm glad we were able to identify what type of animal it was," he said.

The sheriff had previously said he planned to send the specimen away for further testing, but he said yesterday that he will not. "This foot will be kept at the state lab for training purposes," he said.

Idaho State University professor Jeff Meldrum, one of the world's foremost Bigfoot experts, applauded the decision to use the foot as an instructional aide. Meldrum said he has a forensic anthropology textbook that includes a section on the similarities between human and bear feet.

"It's probably more common than people realize," he said, referring to confusing a human foot with a skinned bear paw.

Smith said he considers the case closed and will not investigate further because of the cost and the relatively minor nature of the offense. It is a misdemeanor under the county's ordinances to dispose of animal parts in such a manner.

"I don't know that there would be any way of finding out" how it got there, Smith said. He said he suspects the animal was killed during bear-hunting season and then skinned by a taxidermist. The foot appeared to have been sawed off above the ankle.

Meanwhile, Bigfoot researchers say the episode is just another example of how each possible Bigfoot find must be scientifically eliminated. "You never know when the real evidence of these creatures may surface," said William Dranginis of Manassas, who heads the Virginia Bigfoot Research Organization.

"I don't consider this a waste of time," he said, "because I know they're out there."

Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.