Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LTC8K6]

http://www.mcclean.org/bigfoottimes/blog/BFTJuly05.pdf

Demonstrates that they are likely a casting artifact.

 

[tube]

Hi, Matt "The Tube" Crowley here. I just found your thread. While I am flattered you would include my findings as an entire thread on this forum I do not claim, nor do I feel the evidence supports, that my findings "debunk' the entire class of dermal ridge evidence. The situation is complex, for skeptic and advocate alike. If you have questions I'm willing to try and answer them. I posted a similar response on the other Bigfoot thread, perhaps we should discuss dermal ridge evidence on this thread to keep things in order. That is, if anyone is interested in this stuff besides me!

 

[Dredred]

Has anyone seen "Bigfoot, is it real?", an episode in National Geographic excellent "Is it real?" series?
It shows someone making "bigfoot-feet" that he uses to fake footprints. He shows how he makes the dermal ridges and scars.
LAL has claimed he didn't think such things could be faked, but, as so often, believers greatly underestimate the ingenuity of hoaxers.

 

[tube]

Has anyone seen "Bigfoot, is it real?", an episode in National Geographic excellent "Is it real?" series?
It shows someone making "bigfoot-feet" that he uses to fake footprints. He shows how he makes the dermal ridges and scars.
LAL has claimed he didn't think such things could be faked, but, as so often, believers greatly underestimate the ingenuity of hoaxers.

This falls somewhat outside my claimed area of expertise, but I'll hazard a guess. I saw that episode and it features Esteban Sarmiento who created a large cast using a technique that takes a latex mold and enlarges it with, I believe, kerosene. Sarmiento started with genuine primate dermal ridges. This is a technique that was discussed by Baird in the old journal Cryptozoology. I have no idea if Sarmiento's cast did or did not resemble other casts that are claimed to exhibit dermal ridges. This is one of the reasons I claim to be neither a Sasquatch advocate nor a Sasquatch skeptic, but a Sasquatch agnostic, for much of this stuff is simply not well tested or demonstrated by either "side".

It seems likely that a unique texture can be created on a fake Sasquatch cast, but would it fool Jeff Meldrum or Jimmy Chilcutt? Frankly, I have no idea. Remember, an effective hoax entails more than just the creation of something fake, it must also be effectively passed off.

 

[Dredred]

This falls somewhat outside my claimed area of expertise, but I'll hazard a guess. I saw that episode and it features Esteban Sarmiento who created a large cast using a technique that takes a latex mold and enlarges it with, I believe, kerosene. Sarmiento started with genuine primate dermal ridges.

Well, this is also definately not my area of expertise and I'm only vaguely interested in it. That's why I didn't pay close enough attention to recall it very specifically, but I think the guy also showed another way to create dermal ridges, by imprinting the latex with something (can't remember what).

It seems likely that a unique texture can be created on a fake Sasquatch cast, but would it fool Jeff Meldrum or Jimmy Chilcutt?

I don't know much about them but I think that someone who wants to believe is easy to fool (and that applies to scientists too, think of the scientific testing of Uri Geller for instance).

 

[LAL]

Has anyone seen "Bigfoot, is it real?", an episode in National Geographic excellent "Is it real?" series?
It shows someone making "bigfoot-feet" that he uses to fake footprints. He shows how he makes the dermal ridges and scars.
LAL has claimed he didn't think such things could be faked, but, as so often, believers greatly underestimate the ingenuity of hoaxers.

The "someone", I'm told, was Dr. Esteban Sarmiento is a functional anatomist in the American Museum of Natural History. His primary research interest involves the skeletons of hominoids.
He does not "fake footprints".

There have been fakes, but they're not as sophisticated as this. Invariably, they seem to be carved wooden feet. The hoaxes that have been exposed were amateurish and no one's produced any latex feet to my knowlege.

The kerosene method has been tested in Dr. Jeff Meldrum's lab. The resulting product is too fragile to be of much use.

I've never claimed such things couldn't be faked, but I find it highly unlikely a hoaxer would go to all this trouble to plant footprints in remote areas where the chance of discovery would be almost zero.

And I'm a "she".

 

[tube]

The kerosene method has been tested in Dr. Jeff Meldrum's lab. The resulting product is too fragile to be of much use. (per LAL)

I was not aware that this had actually been tested. Do you have a reference on that?

 

[LAL]

The kerosene method has been tested in Dr. Jeff Meldrum's lab. The resulting product is too fragile to be of much use. (per LAL)

I was not aware that this had actually been tested. Do you have a reference on that?

Meet the Sasquatch pg. 141 in Meldrum's article Dermetoglyphics in Casts of Alleged North American Ape Footprints. The article doesn't seem to be online.

"Baird describes a method of enlarging a latex mold with kereosene. This process was was replicated in our lab with latex molds of human feet with clear ridge detail. It resulted in a uniform expansion of the mold and attempts to disportionately expand selected areas created deformation and warping of the mold. The process left the mold extremely brittle and difficult to handle without damaging it. More fundamentally, this method fails to address the distinctions of ridge flow patterns evident in the cast."

Krantz addressed this too:

"The near constancy of ridge spacing in primates rules out one method of faking. Latex molds of real skin, soaked in kerosene, will expand greatly; there may also be other methods of expanding molds. This procedure could produce gigantic skin patterns (in some respects), but the ridge spacing would also be expanded, and thus easily recognizable as abnormal."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html


BTW, and not to get off topic, would you or Dana know where Murphy's information on the camera came from? We seem to have found a discrepancy ourselves. (PGF film sceptics take note.)

 

[Dredred]

The kerosene method has been tested in Dr. Jeff Meldrum's lab. The resulting product is too fragile to be of much use.

Obviously it would be possible to make a not so fragile product, if someone would want to. The problem is, someone who wants to disprove the possibility won't think of it. Someone who wants to actually make it would do a little experimenting with different techniques, like this one, and come up with a solution.

I've never claimed such things couldn't be faked

And I've never claimed that you did. I claimed that you said that you thought it coudn't be done, but perhaps I misunderstood you. I asked you: "You've got pics of bigfoot footprints showing sweat pores, healed scars etc.? Interesting. Please share. However, don't you think even that could be faked?"
You answered: Nope. Dr. White (the Dr. Tim White of Berkeley) thought the pores could be air bubbles, but experimentation showed they're circular while sweat pores are irregular in shape.

 

[LTC8K6]

It was clear to me that the dermal ridges could have been faked before I read of your demo, Matt.

You have simply added more doubt about the ridges.

More doubt about the reality of the ridges shoots them down, imo.

They were already trailing smoke and losing altitude.

 

[tube]

Ultimately I would have to agree with the assertion that "dermal ridges could be faked". However this is a rather hollow argument. I could make the same true claim about man landing on the moon; "it could have been faked". In fact, the hollowness of this form of argument is what moved me from a Sasquatch skeptic to a Sasquatch agnostic. As with advocate arguments, there are stronger and weaker skeptical arguments. I've read everything I can get my hands on about purported Sasquatch dermal ridge evidence and the skeptical arguments I found were simply not that good. Note that my failure to embrace dermal ridge skepticism does not logically entail that I am a dermal ridge advocate.

My real point in all this is that I feel that both skeptics and advocates have failed to do the kind of thorough investigation of this issue that I believe is warranted. The advocates have assumed that a cement track cast is always an accurate representation of the object that made the track. I do not believe this has yet been established by the advocates. Bigfooters are fond of quoting John Green who said something to the effect that "Its not the foot that made the track but what it did when it hit the ground", thus asserting that track making is a dynamic and not a static event. I agree. However, I would like to add that as far as mud goes, what happens when the foot leaves the mud is also important. There is an element of suction that the advocates have not addressed. I have only made one cast of my own foot in real world, muddy conditions. The resulting cast contained my own dermal ridges as well as patches of strangely branched surface texture that did not match my own skin. I believe this branched texture arose from the suction created as my foot left the mud.

I believe other factors may be involved that may modify the surface texture on resulting casts such as the drying of the track. What happens when a track made in wet soil or mud starts to dry out? Does the new surface begin to crack or wrinkle?

There are even stranger ways textures can develop on cement casts. Some months ago I left a number of test casts outside and basically forgot about them. When I examined them recently the surface had eroded in a strange, branched pattern which reminded me of Freeman's "Wrinkle foot". Could Freeman have simply left his cast outdoor for a few months? I have no idea. Again, I believe there are multiple possibilities BESIDES HOAXING that may account for these surface textures, including a Sasquatch foot.

Do you see what I'm driving at? The knee-jerk skeptic mentality of "it could have been hoaxed" simply does not address a whole range of possible explanations for surface textures in purported Sasquatch casts. I'm not even asserting that I believe a "naturalistic" explanation is the correct one. What I'm suggesting is that a thorough investigation of how surface textures can arise on cement casts is in order. I do not have a pre-conceived idea of what the results of those tests might be. I am open to the possibiltiy that some of these other casts, besides Onion Mountain, were indeed made by a Sasquatch foot.

As a final thought, there really are TWO parallel chains of thought on purported Sasquatch dermal ridge evidence; one is simply how these textures got on the final casts. The other is the INTERPRETATION of those textures or ridges. I would suggest that if you want to pursue meaningful skepticism that you take a look at how these ridges are being interpreted. We don't have a type specimen, why is a "match" being asserted? Why do purported Sasquatch dermal ridges lack short order recursion, i.e. loops and whorls? We have lots of bifurcations, but where are the whorls?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why do purported Sasquatch dermal ridges lack short order recursion, i.e. loops and whorls? We have lots of bifurcations, but where are the whorls?

Excellent point ...

Has Chilcut or Meldrum made any obsevations in this regard ?

 

[tube]

Excellent point ...

Has Chilcut or Meldrum made any obsevations in this regard ?

The only one that I know of was Jimmy Chilcutt's comment to the effect "they are like nothing I've seen before" on the Sasquatch Legend Meets Science DVD. I'm unwilling to read a lot into this. I'm planning on attending the Jefferson Sasquatch conference this October, I'll have to ask him then.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ultimately I would have to agree with the assertion that "dermal ridges could be faked". However this is a rather hollow argument.

I agree, that is a hollow argument.

 

[LTC8K6]

I can't see any dermal ridges at all in some of Chilcutt's examples. The only dermal ridges I see are the "accidental" human ones. The ones purported to be bigfoot's, look nothing like dermal ridges to my eye.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/elkins.html

They appear to me to be the effect of suction as well. I have had the idea in my head for a while, but could not think of a good way to express it until Matt mentioned it.

I had been researching casting problems.

 

[LTC8K6]

The knee-jerk believer's mentality of "it was bigfoot" simply does not address a whole range of possible explanations for surface textures in purported Sasquatch casts.

Back at ya'

 

[tube]

The knee-jerk believer's mentality of "it was bigfoot" simply does not address a whole range of possible explanations for surface textures in purported Sasquatch casts.

Back at ya'

Well put! What kind of casting research have you done? Is it Bigfoot related?

 

[tube]

The knee-jerk believer's mentality of "it was bigfoot" simply does not address a whole range of possible explanations for surface textures in purported Sasquatch casts.

Back at ya'

Well put! What kind of casting research have you done? Is it Bigfoot related?

 

[LTC8K6]

I had just begun to look at casting defects shortly before I ran across your name.

I certainly have not dismissed dermal ridges with a simple "They could be faked.", even though that is in fact enough to dismiss them given the level of evidence available in support of them.

 

[LTC8K6]

I've never claimed such things couldn't be faked, but I find it highly unlikely a hoaxer would go to all this trouble to plant footprints in remote areas where the chance of discovery would be almost zero.

If you plant them in non-remote areas you are more likely to get caught, aren't you?

There are numerous examples of hoaxers going to enormous lengths for a hoax.

I just saw a show about a fake engraved stone. The hoaxers went to the trouble of finding iron-age soot so that when the patina was tested it would date correctly. They even added gold to it. The Jehoash Inscription.

It fooled some of the best, for a while. Note the similar refrain about no one knowing how to do it......

The collector then took the tablet to Israel's Geological Institute, whose experts studied it over the past year. "Our findings show that it is authentic," said Shimon Ilani, who performed geological tests on the inscription. Carbon dating confirms the writing goes back to the 9th century B.C., he said.

In the outer layer, Ilani and his colleagues found microscopic flecks of gold that could have been burnt into the stone when a building containing both the tablet and gold objects was destroyed.

This could mean the tablet was actually part of Solomon's Temple, which was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C., said Amos Bean, director of the institute.

"These specks of gold are not natural material, but a sign of human activity," said Bean. "They could be from gold-plated objects in the home of a very rich man, or a temple. ... It's hard to believe that anyone would know how to do these things to make it look real."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/13/world/main536330.shtml