• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MonsterTalk.org - Word!

Now he's saying "I'm not calling it a Bigfoot... I'm saying it's a non-human primate." WTF? This guy might really be wacky after all. He is a Bigfoot believer.
 
Chilcutt says he is no expert on casting and techniques but is calling Noll a casting expert and that he doesn't get "casting artifacts".

Jimmy acknowledges Crowley but is denying that a number of important casts show artifacts as opposed to genuine dermals. The Bigfooters are going to light up cigars tonight. Chilcutt is standing behind his claims that these are genuine "non-human primate" tracks and that the dermal ridges (+ scars) authenticate them.
 
He says the Skookum Cast is inconclusive but does show "dermal ridges on the heel" and an Achilles tendon. "I'm not familiar with any conclusive evidence that it was an elk."
 
Elkins Creek cast "appears to" have sweat pores on the ridges. Not certain but it looks that way.
 
Radford is impotent in trying to discredit Chilcutt's approval of the casts. He's totally unprepared to oppose Chilcutt. Jimmy and the Bigfoot win this episode.
 
Typical Bigfoot trivia: I was told by Meldrum that the "CA" designations on several of the casts were put there by Grover Krantz, who died in 2002. Chilcutt examined Meldrum's collection in the late 1990's. Perhaps Medrum didn't receive CA-19 until after Krantz' death.

But if that is the case, then what cast did Chilcutt examine?

Since Chilcutt has decided not to concede that he's wrong, we can expect that some within Bigfootery will maintain the textures on CA-19 are "dermal ridges" UNTIL THE END OF TIME.
 
William Parcher said:
Elkins Creek cast "appears to" have sweat pores on the ridges. Not certain but it looks that way.
Click to expand...

I want to see someone demonstrate that details as fine as sweat pores can be recorded in plaster. None of the test casts I've made recorded detail as fine as a sweat pore.

It should be noted that at this point there is no original Elkins Creek cast to examine. The original was sent to Meldrum for analysis. He made a copy of the cast and it was destroyed in shipping back to James Akin. The cast Chilcutt examined would have had to have been Meldrum's copy (or a subsequent generation of that copy).

tube said:
But if that is the case, then what cast did Chilcutt examine?
Click to expand...

I don't know that Chilcutt could answer that question. The chain of custody and generational copy record seems sparse at best. In older casts there is no way to even know if the detail you're examining was present in the original cast given that the pre-latex method of replicating casts often involved pressing the original down into sand and pouring a plaster copy in the subsequent print.
 
William Parcher said:
Radford is impotent in trying to discredit Chilcutt's approval of the casts. He's totally unprepared to oppose Chilcutt. Jimmy and the Bigfoot win this episode.
Click to expand...


Ohz Nohz!


But seriously, I came away from the interview with the impression (pardon) that Chilcutt believes that the most plausible explanation for what he sees on those three casts is that it is a biological creature. Even though one of the casts is a Freeman cast with a human thumb print on it? And even thought Matt Crowley's shown that casting artifacts can cause similar effects? And even though if it were human footprints we'd expect to see multiple instances across a trackway.

Chilcutt seems earnest, and knowledgeable. But I don't know if he's got much interest in following up on alternative theories at this point. And even if further evidence of alternative explanations come up, they'll have to be sent to him. He's not out looking for them AFAIK.

But as our first "believer" I thought he was a very good interview, and very amicable.
 
It's unfortunate that Chilcutt has no knowledge whatsoever of the work Matt Crowley has done since their meeting in Jefferson in 2005. Many of the objections that he raised in this interview have been addressed since that time. Large foot shaped impressions have been cast, the pattern follows the contour of the foot and if there is a ball of the foot it follows it and has the sharp bend in flow that Chilcutt stated he had a problem with test casts not having. The flow pattern is on the sides of the foot, the same as in the squatch dermal pattern but not other primates. The ridges are most pronounced in these areas, not all over like Chilcutt claims. Matt has also done tests with other substrates and have had similar results as well. Chilcutt also seems not to have any knowledge that CA-19 was part of a sequence of casts from the same trackway that also obviously exhibit casting artifacts.

If he would actually see these test casts he would probably have a different view. CA-19 exhibits the pattern that he bases all other casts said to have dermals on. The Freeman casts were cast in Loess soil ( also shown by Lon Erickson to produce artifacts ) as well as in the Blue Mountains that also have high amounts of volcanic ash. The scar that he finds to be authentic closely resembles a test cast that was produced by mud suction. The Elkins Creek cast that Chilcutt says has the pattern on the sides of the foot actually appears to have a geometric grid pattern that resembles burlap, which is used to reinforce plaster. In the Skookum cast what is claimed to be dermals on the heel actually runs contrary to the pattern Chilcutt claims squatch's have.
 
I think Chilcutt attends the same school of thought as Meldrum. Even after they come to the realization 'there is no Bigfoot', what's it matter really to their future and/or their 'reputations' to just continue a charade of its existence if the actual chances of Bigfoot being somehow-but-genuinely disproved are nil to none. Not sure why they think simply 'coming clean' wouldn't be a better idea, but...

Their 'staying the course' helps them avoid having to answer the harder questions. I mean, how could these held-in-such-high-esteem 'experts' be so oblivious to and/or unwilling to see the 'glaring problems' so many other non-experts so easily see? I'm definitely through publicly lamenting Meldrum's pro-Bigfoot/science dilemma - the answer was always right there, as dishonest and corrupt as it is.
 
Bitter Monk said:
I want to see someone demonstrate that details as fine as sweat pores can be recorded in plaster. None of the test casts I've made recorded detail as fine as a sweat pore.
Click to expand...

Um. The substrate where the print was made would have had to preserve the feature before the plaster could pick it up. You could try casting your own foot directly in plaster. If that doesn't work, then it would not pick it up EVER in a print.

Wet sand along a creekbed is generally rather large-grains - too large to preserve even dermal ridges. You need some medium-fine to fine grained sediment to preserve such small features. Am I correct?

I guess the main question I had throughout the episode, and I'm not sure I want to spend the time to look up the answer, is how variable is the process of casting? Is the material the same? What can you do differently each time? What other substances can be used in the process.? It would seem to me that these casting artifact questions have decent test cases somewhere.
 
idoubtit said:
Um. The substrate where the print was made would have had to preserve the feature before the plaster could pick it up.
Click to expand...

That's partially my point. If the substrate can't record the detail then what is being observed is not a pore. The same goes for the plaster. Even if the substrate could record the detail if the plaster can't record it then again the detail is not a pore but some type of artifact.

You don't need to prove or disprove the details are pores if you can demonstrate that the detail is too fine to be recorded in the first place. To date the finest detail I've been able to record in plaster (and the substrate) are my own dermal ridges, but those have been under ideal conditions.
 
My own tests are in agreement with Bitter Monk's. I posted the results elsewhere on the Internet, but never got around to putting up a page on my own site.

Basically I learned from Chilcutt himself that Silly Putty is an ideal substrate in the sense that it can capture detail as fine as human sweat pores. I washed my hands thoroughly in hot water and Dr. Bronner's soap. Using a 14X loupe, I could easily see the sweat pores on the ridge peaks of my thumb dermals. Pressing my thumb into a blob of virgin Silly Putty I made a deep indentation.

***NOTE: "VIRGIN" IN THIS SENSE MEANS NOT PREVIOUSLY USED***

Using the loupe again, I could see that the Silly Putty captured that level of detail, i.e. I could see the little bumps in the valleys created by the ridges. Casting with thin Ultracal 30 most certainly captured the ridges, but NOT the sweat pores.

Chilcutt also spoke at length about the "scar" on what he called the "Walla Walla" cast, which I understand has also been called "Wrinkle Foot." I've included a short treatment of that issue here:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/dermal-ridges-and-scars/

As an aside, I find it interesting that Chilcutt mentioned that he's been sent various artifacts like jam jars that contain latent prints. Interestingly, they all turned out to be human.
 
I dug out Lockley's Tracking Dinosaurs and he notes that skin impressions are only made 1) the substrate is fine mud, such as the consistency of potters clay and 2) when there is little movement of the foot when the track is being placed due to smearing.

I'm discarding the sweat pores idea because silly putty type sediment wouldn't exist in the American NW. You might get that if Patty walked in lagoons like the kind that preserves bird feathers or melanosomes.

What I might suggest to footprint collectors is to take a sample of the substrate in the same location as the track. Then, you can test the substrate with human tracks to see if one is able to reproduce dermal ridges. But, that would be scientific and far more careful than what has been done in the past.
 
It's not as simple as just taking a soil sample from the same location. Moisture content of the soil, humidity, and temperature (ambient, soil, and slurry temp) can all affect the casting process.
 
I'm talking about looking at grain size and attempting to replicate preservation of a print with that material. The grain sizes will either be small enough to preserve such features or not.

Were I taking a fossil sample, I would record many more pieces of orientation data prior to removal. But since I can't take a fresh track way, I would take a sample of the substrate.
 
Oh I'm not disagreeing with you. Just like you noted with orientation data there is much that needs to be recorded other than just the process of pouring a bunch of slurry into a hole in the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom