Merged Bigfoot follies

[LTC8K6]

Criminals have been caught from the DNA they left on cigarette butts. It seems strange to me that an apple chewed by an animal wouldn't be loaded with it's DNA.

I know, bigfeets are smart enough to avoid leaving their DNA.

Exactly what formal training does Chilcutt have regarding the claims he is making?

I know he has been trained as a human fingerprint examiner, but he seems to be self trained regarding non-human primates.

There really doesn't seem to be anything new about bigfoot in all of the stuff I have read recently. Just the same old same old......most of it the same as what I heard about as a child.

 

[LTC8K6]

I have zero confidence in Chilcutt after reading this interview. He has nothing that matches the dermal ridges on the prints, and he is the only one that has the expertise to make the match? Sounds odd to me.

Let's take him at his word. No known primate matches the dermal ridges on the bigfoot casts. I see 2 equally viable possible conclusions:

A. The prints are those of an unknown primate.
B. The prints are fake.

Dermal ridges running the length of the foot just don't make any sense to me at all. I'm beginning to think the ridges are a hoax.

http://www.normalpeoplelikeyou.com/article_assets/sasquatch.htm

JO: Was there anything different about these particular friction ridges?

JC: Yeah, once I decided they could not have been faked I started looking at the texture and the ridge-flow pattern. I found in all the sasquatch foot casts I examined that the ridges flow up and down the side of the foot...in humans the ridges flow across, and in primates that we know of they flow at an angle.

JO: So this is something completely different from both apes and humans?

JC: Yes. I've never seen a print where the ridges go up and down the side. And once I determined what this animal's print looked like, it was easy to examine the others and be able to tell a fake from a real one.

snip

JO: How have peers in your field reacted to your findings?

JC: Well, the thing about it is, there's just not a whole lotta people in the world that have the primate expertise along with the human expertise. Now, there's a lot of Phds who have studied primate dermal ridges, but have no idea how to compare it to human ridge-flow pattern and texture. I'm one of the few - if not the only one - that actually has expertise in both areas. And that's what you need in this field, in this sasquatch dilemma, is someone who can tell a fake.

 

[Ceinwyn]

JC: Well, the thing about it is, there's just not a whole lotta people in the world that have the primate expertise along with the human expertise. Now, there's a lot of Phds who have studied primate dermal ridges, but have no idea how to compare it to human ridge-flow pattern and texture. I'm one of the few - if not the only one - that actually has expertise in both areas. And that's what you need in this field, in this sasquatch dilemma, is someone who can tell a fake.

What a load of bullcrap.

Of course there are experts who know about dermal ridges etc. Primate and human. He's a big old fraud.

What's he selling?

 

[LAL]

Criminals have been caught from the DNA they left on cigarette butts. It seems strange to me that an apple chewed by an animal wouldn't be loaded with it's DNA.

I only know the sample refused to give up anything useful. I don't know exactly why.
If there were cells from any other animal or even a human, shouldn't that have been evident?

Exactly what formal training does Chilcutt have regarding the claims he is making?

" Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt retired from the Conroe Police Department after 18 years as a latent fingerprint examiner and crime scene investigator. He has over 26 years active duty as a police officer and holds a Master Police Officer Certification from the State of Texas.

After graduating from Jackson High School in Lubbock, Texas Chilcutt entered the U.S. Army as a Pvt. E-1 and left the service after 9 years, attaining the rank of Chief Warrant Officer W-2. He had tours of duty in Korea and Vietnam.

Investigator Chilcutt has over one thousand classroom hours of instruction in forensic subjects including basic identification at D.P.S. Austin, advanced latent fingerprint comparison F.B.I. University of Houston, advanced latent palm print comparison Mississippi State Crime Lab, advanced crime scene investigation, and many other forensic related subjects. He has testified as a fingerprint expert on County, District and Federal courts in several counties in Texas and North Carolina.

In the Crime lab he has developed unique procedures in developing latent fingerprints that have drawn hundreds of requests from Federal, State, and County agencies to process their evidence. These agencies include FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Service, DPS Narcotic Units throughout Texas, and various County Sheriff Departments.

Awards received for his outstanding service in forensics include, three City of Conroe outstanding officer awards, one meritorious service award, three county wide officer of the year awards, the 100 Club officer of the year award, and the coveted Directors Award from the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Investigator Chilcutt has often been a guest lecturer at Sam Houston State University, Idaho State University, North Harris County College, and for the Conroe High School Criminal Justice Program. He also teaches the State of Texas Intermediate Crime Scene Investigation Core Course at the FBI/Conroe P.D. training facility."

I know he has been trained as a human fingerprint examiner, but he seems to be self trained regarding non-human primates.

Well, since he's the first to collect the data on primate prints, I guess you could call him self-trained on that.
He has the data for comparison.

There really doesn't seem to be anything new about bigfoot in all of the stuff I have read recently. Just the same old same old......most of it the same as what I heard about as a child.

Then you're either very young or you haven't kept up. There's the Freeman 1994 footage, the Memorial Day footage, the film taken by Scott Herriot's friend's father, the Skookum Cast and numerous track events and credible reports in recent years.

The BFRO has been around since 1996. According to Green, they have about 8000 reports in their database. They've provided a way for people to report and they follow up where possible.

There's video from Manitoba and a filmed trackway from California just last month.

 

[LAL]

JC: Well, the thing about it is, there's just not a whole lotta people in the world that have the primate expertise along with the human expertise. Now, there's a lot of Phds who have studied primate dermal ridges, but have no idea how to compare it to human ridge-flow pattern and texture. I'm one of the few - if not the only one - that actually has expertise in both areas. And that's what you need in this field, in this sasquatch dilemma, is someone who can tell a fake.

What a load of bullcrap.

Of course there are experts who know about dermal ridges etc. Primate and human. He's a big old fraud.

What's he selling?

Ed Palma was another fingerprint expert who examined casts.

What other primate fingerprint experts are there? Please name them.

And who are you to call Chilcutt a fraud?

 

[LAL]

I have zero confidence in Chilcutt after reading this interview. He has nothing that matches the dermal ridges on the prints, and he is the only one that has the expertise to make the match? Sounds odd to me.

He's the only one with the expertise because he's the only one so far to collect fingerprint data on other primates. He found no match there and the pattern isn't human. Meldrum's collection is open for investigation. Has anyone refuted Chilcutt's findings?

Let's take him at his word. No known primate matches the dermal ridges on the bigfoot casts. I see 2 equally viable possible conclusions:

A. The prints are those of an unknown primate.
B. The prints are fake.

Dermal ridges running the length of the foot just don't make any sense to me at all. I'm beginning to think the ridges are a hoax.

Why would they have to make sense? Do ours?
How would hoaxers twenty years and hundreds of miles apart happen to come up with the same pattern? Or is there an international network of hoaxers handing information down through the generations? And somehow they never get caught?


http://www.normalpeoplelikeyou.com/article_assets/sasquatch.htm [/B][/QUOTE]

Not a bad article. I hadn't seen that one. Thanks.
Did you read this part?

"Dr. Jeff Meldrum is a physical anthropologist at Idaho State University. In 1996 he was shown a fresh line of sasquatch footprints in southeastern Washington. He found them compelling enough to prompt the undertaking of a more systematic review of footprint evidence. Over the past seven years, Dr. Meldrum has examined hundreds of casts and photographs of alleged bigfoot tracks. His position on the possibility of bigfoot's existence is firm:

Jon Olsen: Based on the studies you have conducted, what conclusions can you draw with certainty?

Jeff Meldrum: Science is by nature tentative - a point that many overlook. However, one conclusion I can personally and professionally make is that "something" is leaving large bipedal footprints. Convincingly faking a line of animated footprints is not such a simple undertaking as many would assume. Yes, there have been fakes - these are generally transparent. On the other hand there are tracks that have borne up under scrutiny by experts in primate anatomy and locomotion, such as me, and expert trackers who are familiar with the nuances of a "living" track.
I still maintain that the tracks indicate the presence of some animal that has not been fully accounted for.

JO: Do you ever examine tracks on location?

JM: Yes, when and where possible. Otherwise, I refer the incident to some of my collaborators in that region to investigate. I have examined fresh tracks personally on at least 5 occasions.

JO: What do you look for to distinguish faked footprints from genuine tracks?

JM: In addition to the anatomy of the footprint I look for those dynamic signatures that indicate a "living" track, i.e. pressure ridges, tension cracks, slide-ins, drag-outs, variation in toe flexion/extension, etc.

JO: How many casts have you examined? Of those, how many do you believe to be authentic?

JM: I have assemble a sample that numbers in excess of 150 casts, and half again as many photographs of casts and footprints. Frankly the majority are quite credible.

JO: Do you examine other kinds of evidence?

JM: Yes, as an anatomist and student of primate locomotion, I examine films and photos that allege to depict Sasquatch. In collaboration with other researchers I also examine dermatoglyphics, hair, scat, DNA.

JO: Do you think the Roger Patterson film is authentic photographic evidence of a sasquatch?

(The film I refer to is the famous shakey shot of a female Bigfoot walking across a dry riverbed and disappearing into a forest. Shot at Bluff Creek, CA in 1967, this piece of film, even today, remains a point of contention between believers and skeptics. The media coverage of Ray Wallace's Great Prank has vaguely implied that Wallace had a hand in the film's creation.)

JM: I am convinced of the authenticity of the Patterson film. If based on nothing other than the footprints associated with that film, it appears to be authentic. The dynamics of the footprints correlate with the kinematics of the foot evident on the film itself to the careful observer, which in turn correlate with the particulars of gait and anatomical distinctions exhibited by the film subject.

JO: Have you had the opportunity to look at casts of the prints made by the animal depicted in that film?

JM: Definitely. Patterson cast a pair. Others were photographed by a FS timber cruiser shortly thereafter. Later Bob Titmus cast a series of ten footprints. These are very informative and speak volumes to the authenticity of the film.

JO: Much is made of Roger Patterson's character issues. It is frequently mentioned that he knew hoaxer Ray Wallace, that Wallace told him where to go to see a sasquatch. It is also said that Patterson had Hollywood connections.
(As a filmmaker, I am aware of how frequently people assume that use of camera equipment along with time spent in Southern California automatically mean "Hollywood connections".)
In short, many skeptics have opined that the circumstances surrounding this famous piece of film are too convenient for it to be true.
In your opinion, does any of this weaken the possible veracity of the film?
Or are these details being blown out of proportion?

JM: Patterson's dealings with "Hollywood" have been scrutinized extensively and there is no "smoking gun." He was at Bluff Creek on the heels of a track find the previous month that was investigated extensively. His stated intent was to get film footage of fresh footprints for a documentary he hoped to produce to fund further field research. It has been said that Wallace told Roger where to go to get Bigfoot on film, but those who spoke to Wallace said it was obvious he was unfamiliar with the particulars of the area in question. The site was examined by the FS timber cruiser, Lyle Laverty, and companions shortly after the incident and Mr. Laverty has told me that he saw nothing in the tracks to indicate anything had occurred other than what Roger and Bob recounted. The Wallaces themselves have stated openly and publicly that Ray had nothing to do with the Patterson film and they have no knowledge of whom or what is on that film. Mrs. Wallace did admit to donning a costume so her husband could film her, but rather than show that admittedly hoaxed footage the media instead repeatedly aired a clip from the Patterson film, or implied that the Patterson film was Mrs. Wallace in a costume, without bothering to explain how the diminutive Mrs. Wallace filled the stature of the Patterson film subject. The Wallace claims only undermine the credibility of the Patterson film in the minds of those ignorant of the facts or grasping for a simplistic explanation for an anomalous event."




Have you seen Meldrum's analysis on the soft tissue abnormality on the right thigh of the Patterson creature?
There's a clip here under "Video":

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_video.html

 

[Hitch]

Have you seen Meldrum's analysis on the soft tissue abnormality on the right thigh of the Patterson creature?
There's a clip here under "Video":

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_video.html

I'm torn between laughing out loud and screaming in fury at the ignorance of that clip.

You have an extremely blurry, jumpy, out of focus film clip with a couple frames that -- if you think about it at all logically -- might show a fold in the fur covering of a baggy monkey costume. So what do the "bigfoot experts' conclude. That it shows a "traumatic pathology" of the creature in question which makes it walk like a man stumbling under the weight of a heavy fur suit in the woods.

And don't get me started on the skeleton they drew on the film that floats around inside the outline of the "bigfoot" in exactly the way a skeleton doesn't -- but which is not inconsistent with a man in an oversized monkey suit.

 

[LAL]

I'm torn between laughing out loud and screaming in fury at the ignorance of that clip.

You have an extremely blurry, jumpy, out of focus film clip with a couple frames that -- if you think about it at all logically -- might show a fold in the fur covering of a baggy monkey costume. So what do the "bigfoot experts' conclude. That it shows a "traumatic pathology" of the creature in question which makes it walk like a man stumbling under the weight of a heavy fur suit in the woods.

And don't get me started on the skeleton they drew on the film that floats around inside the outline of the "bigfoot" in exactly the way a skeleton doesn't -- but which is not inconsistent with a man in an oversized monkey suit.

Of course, you haven't established there's anything to the "suit hypothesis".
What are the odds on a fold occuring at the exact location where such a rupture sometimes occurs even in human bipedal females?
Dr. Andrew Nelson concurs, but I doubt he styles himself a "Bigfoot expert".

Below is a still of Bob Heironimus, who claims to be the "guy in the suit" in an "oversized monkey suit" created by Morris (who claimed he sold a suit to Roger Patterson) for the "reenactment".
Where's the fold? Or even any muscle definition?

Poetry has been mentioned. Let me try a little:

"I'm sceptical of sceptics with arguments simplistic.
Let them be more realistic
and offer up some proof."

 

[Hitch]

Of course, you haven't established there's anything to the "suit hypothesis".

Poetry has been mentioned. Let me try a little:

"I'm sceptical of sceptics with arguments simplistic.
Let them be more realistic
and offer up some proof."

The "suit hypothesis" is the simplest explanation for the Patterson film. Any other explanation requires truly dazzling displays of mental gymnastics to come close to making any kind of sense. Bigfoot Woos have yet to show any proof.

Before a rational mind believes in something so extraordinary, it needs more than a gossamer tissue of fabrication and speculation.

And before you bring up "dermal ridges" again. Realize that no one except Bigfoot Woos talk about dermal ridges. Of course all the experts on dermal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates claim they're proof that Bigfoot exists. The only experts on dermal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates are Bigfoot Woos. Do a little experiment. Scrape up some loose dirt in your back yard. Walk barefoot across it. Look at your footprints. Do you see the "dermal ridges" of your toes? Of course not. It's silly. Just like all the silly nonsense about Bigfoot.

 

[LAL]

The "suit hypothesis" is the simplest explanation for the Patterson film. Any other explanation requires truly dazzling displays of mental gymnastics to come close to making any kind of sense. Bigfoot Woos have yet to show any proof.

Bigfoot Woos?
Trying to heap ridicule on investigators is not helping your case, which seems to be an argument from incredulity to begin with.

Humans don't come in those proportions. The suit would have to be part machine to produce an effect that good. Some rather expensive attempts at duplication have failed to come close. The film has been analysed to pieces for nearly forty years. Like the theory of evolution, it continues to hold up.

Meldrum's methodology has been praised even by some of his sceptical collegues:


"Another is Hartwig, who vouches for Meldrum's "rigorous" methods even as he questions his conclusions.

"Jeff has executed the model approach," said Hartwig, who is editing a book on human evolution to which Meldrum is contributing a chapter. "He's weeded out what he believes might be hoaxes or misidentifications. And for the ones he can't exclude, he's devised a theory for what those footprints represent. In a sense, it's beautiful and well-controlled, inductive science. You may think it's far out, but methodologically speaking, he has toed the line very strictly. And he's bold enough not to allow any outside pressure to direct his science."

Before a rational mind believes in something so extraordinary, it needs more than a gossamer tissue of fabrication and speculation.

Well, of course there is much more than "a gossamer tissue of fabrication and speculation". There are thousands of documented reports, tracks, at least a handful of films, hair, scat, other sign......
That you refuse to take any of it seriously is not my problem.

You're not trying to imply you have a rational mind, are you?


Here's an opinion from an orthopedist (from the link in the first post in the thread):

"Dear Editor,
I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was
the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of
my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus;
allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the
film, you are a fool's fool. I have had the opportunity to examine
the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in '67, was such a
suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor
would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and
prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus
is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined
the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area
of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this
is just a ploy to sell them. You can't actually believe the
guy-in-the-suit theory...Can you?
The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some
primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility
that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn't actually view the
P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably
in the early 70's, but didn't get the chance to dissect it, as it
were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to
replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the
film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent
contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human
walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper
leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less
contrive.
Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is
the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected? Ah..
the mystique of it all.
Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist"

Even Dennett questioned Korff's article on Long's book in SI.
There are no better candidates for the "guy in the suit" to my knowlege.

And before you bring up "dermal ridges" again. Realize that no one except Bigfoot Woos talk about dermal ridges.

Who else has examined them? Dennett?

Chilcutt is no "Bigfoot Woo" and went in as a sceptic. So did the leading primate anatomist (on the Skookum Cast, which shows friction ridges on the heel imprint) in the country.
Both came away convinced.
I'm certain Dr. Daris Swindler, a giant in the field, would not appreciate you calling him a "Bigfoot Woo".

Of course all the experts on dremal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates claim they're proof that Bigfoot exists. The only experts on dermal ridges in 8 foot tall North American primates are Bigfoot Woos. Do a little experiment. Scrape up some loose dirt in your back yard. Walk barefoot across it. Look at your footprints. Do you see the "dermal ridges" of your toes?

That would prove exactly what? The dermal ridges in question run along the outside of the sole of the foot, not the toes. Most casts actually don't show friction ridges. This could be due to habitual barefoot walking wearing them down or insensitivity of the casting medium or the substrate.
Did you bother to read what else is considered in determining whether a print is "living" or a fake?

Of course not. It's silly. Just like all the silly nonsense about Bigfoot.

And your opinion that it's "silly nonsense" is evidence of what exactly?

"Admittedly, a few persistent perplexities remain, but much of the naïve criticism of the evidence is dispelled upon closer scrutiny. In my opinion, too many have been too quick to simply toss out the "baby with the bath water." As Orchard articulates it in his opening pages, the skeptics have attempted to refute the matter because they really know nothing about the subject and so can speak of it with the most authority.

D. Jeffrey Meldrum
Department of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
Pocatello, Idaho 83209 USA"

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/blues.htm

 

[LAL]

I didn't claim to have evidence. I'm trying to think up alternative explanations. Do you think it is impossible that a person made those tracks, or just highly unlikely. Are there any pictures of the area from a broader perspective?

Check this link:


http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_prints.html

Sasquatch tracks on a mountain road (Bayanov 1997).
There's a clip of the Bossburg trackway as well.


"The huge number of tracks that have been found and the remoteness of the areas where they have been discovered argue against large-scale faking. Some of these tracks extended for distances of three-quarters of a mile up to several miles with thousands of individual footprints. A series of three thousand footprints, each 16 inches long, was found on a logging road in the Cascade Mountains. On another occasion a long line of prints were discovered on Powder Mountain, about 65 miles north of Vancouver, by a man flying low over the mountain in a helicopter. The tracks were 4,800 feet up the mountainside and ran for five miles before disappearing into ice caves at the foot of a glacier (Hunter 1993). With something like 100 million track events having occurred over the last forty years:

...the skeptics must postulate a well-organized team of one thousand people, working full-time, who are spread over all of North America with their greatest concentration in the Pacific Northwest. (Krantz 1992, p.34)

An independent study of a database of 706 track length measurements further supports the contention that there is no evidence of large scale fakery:

The normal distribution argues compellingly against any alternative hypothesis to the existence of the Sasquatch as a cryptic species, in that production of fictitious data over 40 years by hundreds of people independently of each other would have generated a distribution with many peaks. A further factor that supports the authenticity of the data is the fact that foot length, foot width, heel width, and gait are interrelated in a logical and cohesive fashion, a congruence not plausible by pure chance. (Fahrenbach 1998, pp.50-51)


(http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm

Insertion mine.)



Finally, there is the question of how the fakers manage to produce footprints that are so biologically convincing (Napier 1974, p.125). If they were all the same a hoax would automatically be suspected but Sasquatch footprints vary — some anatomical features are constant, but they are sufficiently different for individuals to be recognised by their footprints."

 

[Hitch]

That would prove exactly what? The dermal ridges in question run along the outside of the sole of the foot, not the toes. Most casts actually don't show friction ridges. This could be due to habitual barefoot walking wearing them down or insensitivity of the casting medium or the substrate.
Did you bother to read what else is considered in determining whether a print is "living" or a fake?
[/B]

What? After pages and pages of talking about dermal ridges you say the most convincing thing about them is they don't appear in most of the casts?

Can you go on to prove that up is down and down is up?

Just stop short of proving that black and white are the same thing. We'd hate for you to be killed at the next zebra crossing.

 

[LAL]

What? After pages and pages of talking about dermal ridges you say the most convincing thing about them is they don't appear in most of the casts?

No, I didn't say that at all.
You do know what a strawman argument is, don't you?


>attempted condescension snipped<


A poster on another board brought up the wear thing, citing bears as an example. He claimed there would likely not be dermal ridges; the feet should be smooth, like bears (or callused like humans?).
I read recently only primates have dermal ridges in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong), so bears wouldn't really be a case in point anyway.

Chilcutt found about half a dozen casts compelling because of the dermal ridges. They're not always obvious. An absense of ridges does not necessarily indicate fakery.

"Grover S. Krantz, an anthropologist at Washington State University, was initially skeptical of Sasquatch reports. In order to determine whether or not the creature really existed, Krantz studied in detail some prints found in 1970 in north-east Washington State. In reconstructing the skeletal structure of the foot from the print, he noted that the ankle was positioned more forward than in a human foot. Taking into consideration the reported height and weight of an adult Sasquatch, Krantz, using his knowledge of physical anthropology, calculated just how far forward the ankle would have to be set. Returning to the prints, he found that the position of the ankle exactly matched his theoretical calculations. "That's when I decided the thing is real," said Krantz. "There is no way a faker could have known how far forward to set that ankle. It took me a couple of months to work it out with the casts in hand, so you have to figure how much smarter a faker would've had to be" (Huyghe 1984, p. 94).

Krantz (1983) and wildman expert John Green (1978, pp. 349-356) have written extensive reports on the North American footprint evidence. Typically the prints are 14 to 18 inches long and 5 to 9 inches wide, giving a surface roughly 3 to 4 times larger than that of an average human foot. Hence the popular name Bigfoot. To make a Sasquatch footprint as deep as an average human footprint would require a weight 3 to 4 times greater than that of an average-sized man. In all cases, however, whether the prints are in snow, mud, dirt, or wet sand, the Sasquatch prints are much deeper than those made by a man walking right next to them in the same material. Thus a weight of more than 3 or 4 times that of a man is required to make the Sasquatch prints. Green, wearing large fake feet and carrying 250 pounds on his back (for a total of 450 pounds), was unable to make a deep enough impression in firm wet sand. Moreover, Green's fake feet were only 14.5 inches long, small for a Sasquatch. Larger feet would have produced impressions of even smaller depth in the sand. Krantz (1983) estimated that to make typical Sasquatch prints a total weight of at least 700 pounds is required. Thus a 200-pound man would have to be carrying at least 500 pounds to make a good print."


http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/living5.html


Krantz found dermal ridges on the Mill Creek tracks, as well as sweat pores and some other interesting features.

"Skin impressions found on the sidewalls of the casts indicated the creature had a flexible sole pad. Various fingerprint experts were consulted, including top state investigators, experts at the Smithsonian Institute and Scotland Yard, and the current and former heads of fingerprinting at the F.B.I. After examining the casts at length, the majority of these experts concluded that the prints were real and not the result of a hoax:

The opinions of almost all of the more than forty experts ranged from 'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the F.B.I. expert who said, approximately, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can't believe it is real.' (Krantz 1992, p.71)"

 

[LTC8K6]

It's the same old thing as far as I am concerned. Weak evidence fawned over and approved by believers. Circular evidence. The same thing that soured me on bigfoot in the first place. Tunnel vision about evidence.

As far as I know, friction ridges are for grip and traction. What good are they if they run front to back on the sides of your foot?

I am well aware of Chilcutt's resume. I see no reason in it to believe a word he says about any bigfoot casts and primate dermal ridges save one thing.

He doesn't know what the ridges in the casts are.

He admits that they look nothing like any other dermal ridges he has samples of, yet he still says they are dermal ridges.

Having reviewed several sites recently, I remain soured on my old bigfoot memories.

If these are the types of folks looking for Bigfoot, and this is how they search for and collect evidence, then Bigfoot need have no fear of ever being proven to exist.

Way too many clowns trying to be scientists.
The biggest idiots seem to have TV shows about bigfoot......

 

[LTC8K6]

How does Krantz know the position of the ankle from a footprint?
This claim stinks, and calls Krantz's objectivity into question in my mind.

Returning to the prints, he found that the position of the ankle exactly matched his theoretical calculations. "That's when I decided the thing is real," said Krantz. "There is no way a faker could have known how far forward to set that ankle. It took me a couple of months to work it out with the casts in hand, so you have to figure how much smarter a faker would've had to be"

I see no way to tell where the ankle is from looking at a footprint.

 

[LTC8K6]

Who were these forty experts and where can I read their comments? I find it difficult to believe that Krantz showed the casts to more than forty "experts". He counted "very interesting" and "they sure look real" ????

I do not think this is credible at all. I hope folks aren't just taking Krantz's word.....

"Skin impressions found on the sidewalls of the casts indicated the creature had a flexible sole pad. Various fingerprint experts were consulted, including top state investigators, experts at the Smithsonian Institute and Scotland Yard, and the current and former heads of fingerprinting at the F.B.I. After examining the casts at length, the majority of these experts concluded that the prints were real and not the result of a hoax:

The opinions of almost all of the more than forty experts ranged from 'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the F.B.I. expert who said, approximately, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can't believe it is real.' (Krantz 1992, p.71)"

 

[LAL]

It's the same old thing as far as I am concerned. Weak evidence fawned over and approved by believers. Circular evidence. The same thing that soured me on bigfoot in the first place. Tunnel vision about evidence.

How do you figure physical evidence is weak? How is it circular? Why do you think it's tunnel vision?

As far as I know, friction ridges are for grip and traction. What good are they if they run front to back on the sides of your foot?

They're "for" something? Sounds like adaptationism to me. Traits may spread through a population if they confer some benefit or tend to be neutral or at least do no harm. If dermal ridges assist in a better grip I would suspect this was an adaptation selected for in an arboreal ancestor. It may or may not confer an advantage on the ground. Humans evolved from the same ancestor as the Great Apes, but our ridges don't run the same way.
If the ridges run front to back perhaps there's an advantage in preventing side-slipping. Or maybe they're just there.

I am well aware of Chilcutt's resume. I see no reason in it to believe a word he says about any bigfoot casts and primate dermal ridges save one thing.

He doesn't know what the ridges in the casts are.

Please provide a citation where he says that.

He admits that they look nothing like any other dermal ridges he has samples of, yet he still says they are dermal ridges.

They do not run the same way as they do in other primates, including humans. That is not to say they do not look like dermal ridges. They do and he compares their width to human ridges.
Hair doesn't look like other known mammals either. That's not to say it's not hair.
With no actual foot for comparison, Chilcutt has gone as far as he can go in his statements. He is convinced, from the evidence, Sasquatches are real.
He's not alone in that opinion. What else would they be? There's no foot for comparision, so no one can say beyond all doubt what they are, but they certainly are what they seem to be beyond all
reasonable doubt.

No one's ever directly observed an atom, either, but it can be inferred they exist.

Having reviewed several sites recently, I remain soured on my old bigfoot memories.

What did Bigfoot ever do to you?

If these are the types of folks looking for Bigfoot, and this is how they search for and collect evidence, then Bigfoot need have no fear of ever being proven to exist.

I get a sense of serenity thinking of these animals roaming the North American forests not caring whether they've been proven to exist or not.

Just what "folks" are you referring to? And what sites are you reviewing? Specifically what's wrong with the way they've searched for and collected evidence?

Way too many clowns trying to be scientists.
The biggest idiots seem to have TV shows about bigfoot......

So in your view nothing has been established because you don't want it to be and scientists taking it seriously are clowns?


Are you referring to Dr. Dr Franklin Ruehl? I know of no one who wouldn't have preferred someone else, but he does have a degree in theoretical Nuclear Physics. It's not from a diploma mill, as far as I know; it's from UCLA. So he might have the intelligence to tell a track from a hole in the ground.

A Current Affair isn't shown in Canada and it appears Bobby Clarke didn't know what kind of outfit he was getting mixed up with. Seems there were inquiries from CNN and others, but A Current Affair actually showed up.

Dr. Meldrum (who doesn't have a TV show but was on onehttp://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20050421-bigfoot.asx ) said this incident warranted serious investigation and it got Dr. Ruehl, Brett Hudson and a chainsaw artist.
However, if the evidence they found holds up it doesn't matter who collected it.

 

[LAL]

How does Krantz know the position of the ankle from a footprint?
This claim stinks, and calls Krantz's objectivity into question in my mind.

I see no way to tell where the ankle is from looking at a footprint.

You're not a trained anatomist?
The drawing of the bones on the casts shows this (Krantz worked from casts, not a footprint). By deducing the position of the bones, particulary on the crippled foot, the placement of the ankle becomes obvious. Note the foot and ankle in frame 72 of the Patterson film.
Remember, Kratz was a sceptic when he began his study. The evidence led him to his conclusions.
His reaction was, "It can't be, but it is."

 

[LAL]

Who were these forty experts and where can I read their comments? I find it difficult to believe that Krantz showed the casts to more than forty "experts". He counted "very interesting" and "they sure look real" ????

The source is given. You're calling Krantz a liar?

If Krantz were pulling something, why would he show the casts to experts at all? Remember, he was well-respected in his field, right up until he took an interest in Sasquatch tracks.
I doubt there were reports. It was difficult enough to get experts to look at these things. Krantz even asked Dr. White (yes, the Dr. White who helped excavate the Laetoli trackway and who is now world famous) to take a look. White chose to remain neutral.

Ed Palma saw ridges on the Bossburg tracks. Note the source of this statement.

"My casts were copies of the originals. I showed these to Ed Palma [a fingerprint expert]. He pointed out three patches where he claimed to see traces of ridge detail. I studied those places intently and saw absolutely nothing. Sometime later Rene Dahinden showed me the originals of these casts. In all three places that Palma had indicated I could now see a few faint ridges. Needless to say, this man's professional qualifications are outstanding."

http://www.n2.net/prey/bigfoot/articles/skeptical.htm


"Footprints


Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologist as important evidence.
Krantz writes that “the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me.” (Krantz, 36) This is a small mound of soil created “by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground” present in some alleged Sasquatch tracks (Ibid) Krantz argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Sasquatch feet can create this convincing feature.
Krantz notes that “The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual’s standing height, or a trace more. Sasquatch step measurements correspond, in general, to stature estimates that are reported from sightings.” (Krantz, 22) Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are “in excess of three feet” (Krantz, 21), arguing this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially.
Coleman and Clark write that there are some footprint hoaxes, but argue they are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints which “show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes”. (Coleman and Clark, 42) Similarly, Krantz notes that “Toe positions can and do vary from one imprint to another of the same foot. We have several clear examples of this. It is my impression that sasquatch toes are more mobile than those on civilized human feet”, and that hoaxing this detail would require detailed anatomical knowledge, making a hoax unlikely. (Krantz, 23)
Researcher Henry Franzoni writes that “A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not a due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. W. Henner Farenbach. He has studied a database 550 track cast length measurements and has made some preliminary observations ... The gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals without much sexual dimorphism in footprint length. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years (the time span covered by the database of track measurements) could provide such a ‘life-like’ distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths.“ [7] (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/faq.html#q1)
Similarly, in “Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch as Evidenced by Track Length and Average Status, anthropologist George Gill writes that “The preliminary results of our study support the hypothesis that Sasquatch actually exists ... not only seem to exist, but confirm to ecogeographical rules.”(Halpin and Ames, 272)
A series of alleged Bigfoot tracks found near Bossburg, Washington, in 1969 appeared to show the creature's right foot was crippled. The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some argue that a hoax is unlikely. John Napier wrote of this case that "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it".[8] (http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/cripplefoot.html) Krantz declares that “analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence ... that the animals were real.” (Krantz, 54)"

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Bigfoot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some argue that a hoax is unlikely. John Napier wrote of this case that "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature.

Let me get this straight..


Hoaxers have no problem stirring all these Bigfoot aficionados up, but going so far as to fake a disfigurement is sick and so unlikely, it makes the footprint more likely to be real..


Not! Sorry, evidence doesn't work that way...


Hoaxer: " Note to self. Adding disfigurements will get these guys going even more.. Yeah !!!