Comments on: Does Huge Fossilized Footprint Offer Proof Of Bigfoot?

By: Lee

Lee — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:54:49 +0000

I’m not trying to suggest that’s the real footprint, however, the one used in the original news article is probably copyrighted

By: Roger

Roger — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:48:05 +0000

That photo is NOT the supposed footprint found in Tennessee!
Google “bigfoot fossil footprint “harold jackson”" to see a video of the actual “footprint”.
Why post a deceptive photo here?

By: Lee

Lee — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 13:30:57 +0000

My first impression when I saw that photo was that it was plaster of paris but is it perhaps just a cast he’s taken?

By: James Moore

James Moore — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:10:55 +0000

The rocks around Center Hill belong to the Upper Ordovician, which in years is 430 million years ago, long, long before man appeared on the scene. At that time, the eastern US was under the ocean, where limestones are deposited.

This fossil needs to be geologically examined to determine if it is actually in limestone. If it is as the picture looks, it seems to be made of plaster of paris.

When I was a geologist with the Tennessee Division of Geology, we would occasionally get things that to the untrained eye appeared to be a fossil. I remember one gentleman that had a rock with roundish nodules, which he claimed were “cow bones.” They were in fact flint nodules from a formation known to commonly contain those nodules.

I would be willing to examine the rock. If the owner wants to post a reply to this, perhaps we can arrange a meeting.

change the at to you know what

Jim Moore

jlmoore-at-bellsouth.net

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:52:22 +0000

I’m not sure – does anyone know how the biggest recorded human footprint measures up?

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:32:43 +0000

This sounds puzzling to me as such a large footprint couldn’t possible be from a man, especially as fossilization takes thousands of years and no-one that tall would have existed then surely?