Bigfoot: Dermal Ridges & MonsterTalk

Dermal ridge evidence (via Chilcutt) is mentioned twice on BFF as supporting evidence that Bigfoot exists. Not a single person has mentioned yet that presented "dermal ridges" have already been debunked.
 
William Parcher said:
Dermal ridge evidence (via Chilcutt) is mentioned twice on BFF as supporting evidence that Bigfoot exists. Not a single person has mentioned yet that presented "dermal ridges" have already been debunked.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people realize that arguing with devout believers (Huntster, Kathy Strain, Melissa, Mulder, etc) about their religion gets old quickly and there has got to be a better use of one's time.
 
GT/CS said:
I think a lot of people realize that arguing with devout believers (Huntster, Kathy Strain, Melissa, Mulder, etc) about their religion gets old quickly and there has got to be a better use of one's time.
Click to expand...

Mike Dennett told me years ago that once something is promoted as evidence of the paranormal, it NEVER goes away completely, regardless of whether it's debunked or not. At first I didn't believe that, but now I do.

I had a very productive nap this afternoon, myself.
 
The 2010 Texas Bigfoot Conference will be held in Tyler, Texas, October 30, 2010. The lineup includes...

11:20 – 12:00: Jimmy Chilcutt – Primate dermatoglyphics specialist
Click to expand...

Also...

8:00 – 9:00: Bob Gimlin at the Banquet
Click to expand...


We reserve the right to refuse admittance to anyone.

Rude, disruptive, or confrontational behavior will absolutely not be tolerated and will result in immediate removal from the premises by law enforcement.
Click to expand...
 
To his credit, Chris Murphy's updated book Know the Sasquatch/Bigfoot includes two pages written by me that outline the desiccation ridge phenomenon. I was worried that my photographs wouldn't come out, but they came out well. The entire book is well illustrated, and is printed on glossy paper.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/knosas.htm

Chilcutt gambled heavily on his authority, so for him to admit he was wrong, and wrong in a big way is just too much. I have no doubt he will promote the desiccation ridges on CA-19 as being "dermal ridges" until his dying day.
 
Since when is there a law against being rude? Confrontational and disruptive I understand, but isn't "rude" a little subjective? Will I be arrested for not using the right fork on the salad or talking with my mouth full?
 
tube said:
Chilcutt gambled heavily on his authority, so for him to admit he was wrong, and wrong in a big way is just too much. I have no doubt he will promote the desiccation ridges on CA-19 as being "dermal ridges" until his dying day.
Click to expand...

Hasn't he always got an out? ie Science moves forward all the time, what was 'right' then becomes 'wronger' as we learn more.

Please, don't get me wrong, it's just that I've seen squirmers before and they can twist anything to 'prove' their position. Look at any DOC post/thread here, I think the phrase 'moving the goal-posts' was made specifically with him in mind.
 
How did Jimmy Chilcutt ever get hooked up with Bigfooters in the first place? Was he already a Bigfooter? Did they somehow know in advance that he would proclaim the ridges to be dermals? Was there ever any other professional fingerprint expert consulted who did say those ridges were casting artifacts? What incredible luck it is that the only guy the Bigfooters went to was a guy that declared the ridges to be evidence for an undescribed bipedal hominoid. He even went as far as to say he would stake his reputation on it (being Bigfoot).
 
William Parcher said:
How did Jimmy Chilcutt ever get hooked up with Bigfooters in the first place? Was he already a Bigfooter?
Click to expand...

No, the story is that he was at home in Texas, watching TV, and Meldrum came on the program. Meldrum started discussing dermal ridges, and this sparked Chilcutt's attention. Chilcutt drove to Idaho and spend quite a bit of time examining Meldrum's casts.

I remember when Meldrum let Wolftrax and me examine the same "CA" series casts in 2006. After looking at them up close and in person, Wolftrax later summed it up succinctly: "What were they thinking?"
 
Ray, that may be like "buck fever" where every moving twig in the woods becomes a prize rack of antlers...
 
William Parcher said:
The 2010 Texas Bigfoot Conference...The lineup includes...
Click to expand...
Being only partly facetious, I'd swear that's the same lineup of speakers that was at the 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005...1878, 1877, 1876 'conferences'. One would think all those 'speakers/thinkers' would somehow finally put two and two together and realize it's still just them. That anyone else who could have potentially also got on-board (the Bandwagon™) would have by now had there been anything worthy of getting on the bandwagon for. I mean, I don't consider Strain or Meldrum to be stupid or dimwitted, but I am unable to find where either one has shown any kind of true critical thinking of late in regards to their continued stance on Bigfoot's existence.

One thing I'm sure they (the conference and its constituents) don't realize is that if one is looking in from the outside, the only thing that is crystal clear is the single-minded-blind-faith fervor with which they practice this literal 'Religion of Bigfoot'. And their inane 'disclaimer' almost singularly proves it. This so-called conference isn't a conference proper at all, it's literally a Bigfoot Revival™. The same ole same ole presented yet again so as to, I suspect, keep the natives from getting too restless when they start to think there's nothing new in Bigfootland™. Sure there is Skipper, this Texas Bigfoot Revival™.

Am I making it up saying they're not really there to intelligently 'discuss' Bigfoot, but to in fact simply 'rejoice in his many offerings' as they also indulge in the 'fellowship' that is very common at these 'warm body' Bigfoot gatherings? What could any of these 'noted speakers' possibly be bringing to the Bigfoot table (i.e. evidence/data/proof) this year that's not already been beat to death in the last 40? Again, am I just guessing saying NOTHING?

One of funniest things to me is how they just refuse to 'come clean' as to what their Bigfoot interests are really about. Big hairy monsters no doubt, but where exactly are those 'monsters'? ;)
 
NO!!11!

Its becuase mastadons were not as intellagent and stealthy as sasquatches, did not lived in the innaccesable forest-covered terrains of teh PNW as sasquatched live and were not a species with low numbers of animals.

Take off you labcoat and go to teh deep woods.
 
Mastodons still live on the unexplored slopes and valleys of the Cascades. Good luck with trying to prove that they don't, silly skeptics.
 
And I can't stop shaking my head when I think some people would actually agree with it...

Sorry, gotta go get my labcoat in the laundry. Its a jungle out there. Disorder and confusion... But no bigfoot.
 
HarryHenderson said:
Being only partly facetious, I'd swear that's the same lineup of speakers that was at the 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005...1878, 1877, 1876 'conferences'. QUOTE]


Not facetious at all. It is basically the same line-up. I was planning on attending Texas for the first time this year and cancelled. I also got scolded for mentioning the monotany of the schedule on a forum. Dr. Meldrum has been at all 3 major Conferences (OH,OR and TX) this year and Kathy Strain at 2 of them (OR and TX). I am not possitive but I also think they are both scheduled for Honobia. Oh yeah, Mr. Gimlin was at all 3 also, but he does not speak very much.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom