Merged Bigfoot follies

[LAL]

[

The original cast certainly looks a lot more vague than the reproductions with the bones drawn on them.

Trick of the light?
I can see grass impressions on the photo I posted precisely where they are on my copies.

What is your source for the quote? It sounds like some of Daegling's nonsense.

"More on the crippled right-footed Bossburg Tracks: Bossburg, Washington 1969
near northeastern Washington's Colville National Forest

On page 56 of Dr. Grover Krantz's 'Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence' book, it was mentioned that "some pathology" might have deformed the right foot of our crippled individual. It has only four toes-the middle one is either missing or somehow raised above the other four, which have spread to fill the gap. More significant is the distortion of the entire foot, which is bent radically inward from the heel. Krantz calculated the natural adaptations in foot structure and stride necessary to enable a large, heavy animal with such an anatomical deformity to walk. "It was right on," he says. "Such an animal would have had to walk exactly as this one did: stride, angle of foot placement, distribution of weight -- it was all exactly as it had to be."

These footprints, in fact, were what converted Krantz from a Sasquatch skeptic to a believer.

"Before I examined these prints, I would have given you ten to one odds that the whole thing was a hoax," he says. "But there is no way that everything could have been tied together so perfectly in a fake."

"Various suggestions have been made as to what that pathology might be, with 'club foot' being the most popular opinion. I had not the expertise, time, nor the inclination to pursue this matter any further. Fortunately Jeff Meldrum did have all those attributes and has provided us with the likely answer. He researched the pertinent literature and found that metatarsus adductus is almost certainly the ailment in question. This is a congenital condition, also known as 'skew foot,' where both heel and forefoot are twisted inward — just as in our crippled footprint. Metatarsus adductus usually occurs in about one per thousand children in varying degrees, usually in just one foot, and often improves over time without treatment. (Interestingly, in one detailed report of fifteen patients it was bilateral in seven cases, affected only the left foot in one, and only the right foot in the remaining seven.) In any case, the actual bones are little affected, and they are simply forced apart as I had postulated originally. This does not necessarily make my foot-bone reconstruction exactly accurate, but it does at least offer some general support."

© Krantz, Grover S. 'Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence' (1999, B.C.: Hancock House, pp. 298-299)

 

[LAL]

LAL, obviously you would wiggle your big fake foot in the sand, not your own foot. What a silly response.

Any foot. What a silly response.
Your big fake foot isn't going to leave convincing friction ridges if you wiggle it around.

" FYI

The readily available, least costly and easiest to work with rubber material used in mold making does not cool, it is not hot. Hot rubber is very dangerous, unless you have the equipment of a major tire manufacture like Cooper. Hot rubber loses the elasticity and replication resolution characteristics needed here. This rubber cures... it degasses. The mixing, settling and curing process produces a gas that gravity tries to extract from the liquid while form fitting to an object. A method of getting this gas out is to sharply rap against the support structure while it is still in liquid form or to use a vacuum chamber after mixing. Air bubbles lingering in the liquid will not be on the surface unless the surface produces tension from being porous in nature. I bring this up because of the skin pores sometimes seen on the ridge details.

Wood grain does not hold loops, whorls or bifurcation commonly found within natural friction ridge patterns. Sure, someone might be able to carve such detail but no one to date has come clean with such a device. The ridges typically found on a purported Sasquatch cast ("typical" here meaning that what is found typically looks like this, not that Sasquatch casts typically, or most of the time, are found with these ridges on them) are around .080" in width. The great apes that are recognized sport even thicker ridge details. Humans are less than .030".

The use of walnut shells could produce some interesting detail in toes but that is about it, for it too has no details linking it to actual friction ridges in primates. Walnut shells have a ridge pattern on them that is not uniform in thickness and would seriously have to be reworked for forgery purposes; Steaming multiple shells and form fitting together to simulate a large foot mold, then carving loops, whorls, bifurcation and sweat pores in them.

The one cast that was sent to Dr. Grover Krantz was a discrediting tactic put out as a challenge from Rene Dahinden and answered by an Ohio resident. Only certain areas on the cast had ridge detail that Grover felt looked good. Instead of attacking Grover... why hasn't anyone attacked the perpetrators? I always have found this interesting.

Feet and hands of course have a difference in this thickness; the hands have thinner ridges. Apes do not have as much a difference between the hands and feet as do humans."

- Richard Noll

(Noll has been investigating for thirty years.)

I still say a bigger foot means the footprint depth would not be much greater.

A lot depends on the substrate.

A hoaxer would be thinking about all of this beforehand, of course. I know I would.

"Hey I know what we should do! Let's make the footprints go up this impossibly steep slope!

Cool!

You're doing this up twenty miles of dirt road in hopes that armed men who have come to film tracks won't see you? Or are you in snow in an area where there's little chance your handiwork will be discovered and all your work will go for naught. How do you erase your traces in snow?
You both have advanced degrees in biomechanics and anthropology? And a lot of time?

Now, they can't just be plain old flat prints, because that wouldn't look right. You come after me and fix the toes so that they appear to be gripping like a real foot would. Make the big toe curl a bit due to the slope.

>rest of ridiculous scenario snipped<

The trees need to be twisted 8' up.

The argument that people couldn't create the hoax, is completely invalid. What you are saying is only that you can't figure out how people could have done it, and that isn't good enough.

Yeah, don't bother having any evidence any of this has actually been done. "Could have been faked" is certainly a compelling argument certain to end any serious discussion.
You could have been faked, for all I know.

I can't figure out how lots of things are done.

Obviously.

I do know a money tree when I see it, though.

Are you aware that Paul Freeman spent around $50,000 and much of his life on his quest and made $1500 doing an ice cream commercial?
René Dahinden ended up broke and disillusioned.
Patterson spent the last of his money on a wild goose chase.
What makes you think there's money in this, especially for hoaxers?

 

[LAL]

Didn't a man admit to faking the crippled Bossburg bigfoot prints?

No.
You're thinking of Rant Mullens. He produced some carved feet which didn't match the tracks. I was sorry to see a reference to this in a 1994 article by James Randi. With all due respect, it's cherry-picking, rather like Creationists bringing up Piltdown Man to "prove" evolution didn't happen.

How come the missing toe shows clearly in the photo of the crippled print in the snow?

Because it isn't missing; it's raised.

A person would only have to walk less than a mile to make 1,089 fake bigfoot tracks.

With a 4'-6' stride.


"The three were quickly down to Marx's place and back to the tracks, cameras and-in René's case-a gun cocked and loaded for Sasquatch. Now for the first time René saw a full spread of the cripple's tracks. They were, and are still, among the most convincing tangible evidence to be turned up in his years as a Sasquatch hunter. The left footprint measured 17 ½ inches long, 6 ½ inches across the ball of the foot, and 5 ½ inches across the heel; the right one was 16 ½ inches long, 7 inches across the ball, and also 5 ½ inches at the heel. The right foot was deformed; the third toe was either badly twisted over or was missing, there being only a slight impression in the snow at its base; the little toe stuck out at a sharp angle; and the whole foot curved outwards and showed two distinct lumps on the outer edge. A careful count eventually showed there were 1,089 clearly definable prints on the path that the three followed through the snow.

The tracks led them from the river, across the railroad and across the main highway. Whatever had made them had stepped over a forty-three-inch-high, five-strand wire fence, judging by the single prints of the left and the right feet on either side of the fence. On the far side of the fence, in a cluster of pine trees, there was a marked depression in the ground among the pine needles, apparently where some heavy animal had rested. No one denies the possibility that this was made by a cow or a deer, there being plenty of each in the area, but its presence in the line of the crippled tracks is worth noting, as is the fact that right in the center of the depression was a clump of snow holding the imprint of the toes of the left foot, as though the snow had been shaken loose after building up on the foot. In the clearing beyond the pine trees were hundreds more tracks, leading across the flat land and up a small hillside. In the heat of what appeared might be the moment of truth, René, discarding his customary caution, cried, "Now we're going to get that hairy sonofabitch!"

He figured the prints were going to lead on up the hill and the hunters would be able to run whatever had made them into the ground. But the prints stopped, halfway up the hill, turned, and retraced their path downward. At one spot, between two side-by-side prints, the hunters discovered a deep yellow patch in the snow, apparently urine. It was probably against their interests that they neglected to collect the yellow snow; analysis may have given some clue as to what made it. The prints continued down the hill, parallel with their first ascending path, returned to the fence and crossed it again about fifty feet from the first step-over.

From there the tracks led the hunters across the road and back and over the fence several times, and eventually across the road and the railroad, through a patch of bush and to the edge of a steep part of the river bank, about one hundred and fifty feet above the water. There the bank was overhanging. The tracks turned and went upstream for approximately two hundred feet, to a point where the bank sloped gradually down to the river, and there they stopped. All the way down the bank was a deep groove, as one made by a heel and a foot acting as a brake for an upright body "skiing" down the bank. Below that there was just rocks; no further markings.

One thought hammered repeatedly in Dahinden's mind, the thought that had prompted his earlier optimistic exclamation: the tracks were fresh, not more than fifteen hours old. He had checked the area the previous evening and it had been bare. Nevertheless, his characteristic caution was at work again. He was stirred all right, but his mind persisted in herding suspicions and pushing them to the front. Why did the tracks happen to be just there, where he would be sure to go every day, where he checked all the time, within a few miles of the garbage dump where the thing had been reported seen all the time? It was the obvious place for a hoaxer to plant his work. On the other hand it seemed impossible that anyone could have faked such minute anatomical detail as was evident in the crippled print. He walked the route of the tracks seven times, examining every print, puzzling over them. Assuming they were real, where had the thing come from, and where had it gone to? Had it crossed the river upstream or downstream, and if so - how far away in which of those directions? (There are numerous reports in the history of the Sasquatch of the creatures swimming rivers and lakes.) The questions were obvious, and easy to ask, but were impossible to answer, given the group's limited resources. Dahinden, applying lessons he had learned at places such as Bluff Creek (where people, seeing a print, had sprinted off in every conceivable direction looking for its owner, leaving the print to the ravages of the first rain shower or the first curious onlooker and his dog), concentrated on the footprints, trying to deduce as much as possible from them."

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

Another pic with a little wider view showing the object that I believe caused the bump in the side of the supposed bigfoot footprint.

The casts were from the first set of prints found by a local man near the dump.
The photos are of the trackway found by Marx and Dahinden days later.

There were over 1089 objects making the bump(s) in exactly the same place?
The "bumps" are bunionettes.

 

[LAL]

CSICOP covered the crippled bigfoot story pretty well.

This?

The possibility neglected by all investigators is that the Bossburg "cripplefoot" is simply an enlarged copy of a human clubfoot deformity. In 1969, textbooks describing congenital foot deformities were commonplace and had been for decades, and images (both photographic and radiographic) had been widely available in such sources. (4) The act of copying such images is a far more likely source of hoaxing than the involved cerebral and technical exercise of fabrication based on anatomical principles. It requires no specialized knowledge beyond tracing and enlarging a two-dimensional image, and the fabricated print of a real deformity ensures the correctness of anatomical detail. Krantz's insistence that a hoaxer must match his training and genius is thus irrelevant."


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

Pure conjecture. Daegling has no case.

 

[LAL]

What is your source for the quote? It sounds like some of Daegling's nonsense.

Oops missed the link. Sorry.
Naturally, a newpaper photo isn't going to show good detail.

Marx did some hoaxing after the fact to "kind of keep things going". He was on the payroll.
But there's no evidence he faked any of the Cripplefoot tracks or was responisible for sightings earlier that year. His mere presense doesn't invalidate the evidence. Green was temporarily taken in by some of his photos (see middle, below).


http://www.geocities.com/tomkinson99/hoaxes/hoaxes.html


He was called in because of his known interest (he'd been on a Tom Slick expedition). Others in the area had sightings. So did his widow. And grandsons. Last month.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/burney05.htm


Hm. Three sightings and/or track events in April '05 that I've found so far without really trying, from California to Canada.
Those hoaxers really get around.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

So, an expert speaks out, gets ridiculed, sceptics wonder why experts don't speak out...........
She's been looking into it for over thirty years, read every book she could get her hands on.........I doubt it was any one piece of evidence.

I don’t wonder, I know exactly why accredited people don’t speak out. Who would? If you were working in some conventional arena with public moneys, you would probably hesitate from making any statement of a field that (from the point of view of many) is squarely in the lunatic fringe.

"The meetings were the American Assn of Physical Anthropologists. I will have to dig up the rejections from my files. I have had two abstracts accepted there, with very good dialogue. Also the Northwest Anthropological Conference, the Idaho Academy of Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Pacific Division). I am working on manuscripts for publication as well. Just had a paper come out in the Journal of Scientific Exploration."

Excellent! I think we get that and I’ll look forward to reading it.

Green, Meldrum, Noll, Bindernagle, Fahrenbach, Swindler, Sarmiento, Schaller and Goodall are hardly those types. Why are they not being listened to?
I hear a recent poll says 80% of Americans now believe Sasquatches are real. Maybe they'll write their congresspeople concerning some funding for research.
As soon as Bush is out of office, that is.........

Don’t hold your breath. It’s very likely we’ll get some other GOP dufus.

I don’t really pay much heed to the 80% of the ‘merican public “believes.” stuff. Most of them probably don’t care one way or the other. Bigfoot resides in a kind of netherworld to most people, somewhere between an involuntary extraterrestrial colonoscopy and bat-boy.

I guess for myself; I’m more interested in the sociology of the phenomena than the creature it’s self. If it were found I would be fascinated. If it were discovered to be some kind of massive hoax. One that became real due to the uncoordinated activity of many people over decades if not millennia, I would find that even *more* fascinating.

 

[songstress]

Bigfoot

If these 'Bigfoots' do exist, then they must be some sort of undiscovered primate. Nothing paranormal, just another species of ape. The photos are far too grainy and out of focus to ascertain what these moving creatures are, so saying that this video is 'definitely Bigfoot' or 'could be 'Bigfoot' is a wild assumption. (Not that anyone here has said that; sometimes these programme makers make impetuous definitions.)

Hitch - I think I saw that programme about these 'Bigfoot' hoaxers, of which you speak. I remember that there was some bloke with these enormous plastic 'Bigfoot' feet on, marching through the woods, and a couple of other blokes behind him, taking pictures. If that isn't the programme, then there must have been another one that I didn't see.

Yes, there has been a discovery of a new species of ape, and another discovery of homo floresciensis, a pigmy species on an island near Indonesia. Scientists have found these species and (presumably) have photographed them. It is the suspicious nature of the photos of the various 'Bigfoots', and the wild stories surrounding them that make the creature something to be more 'otherworldly' than it really is. What with the 'fake feet merchants' and the 'dressing up in 'Bigfoot' gear' hoaxers added to the mix, it becomes more laughable than serious.

Whatever the truth about 'Bigfoot', it certainly isn't paranormal.

Patsy.

 

[Starrman]

Pure conjecture. Daegling has no case.

Fair enough, but to say it was a genuine Big Foot is conjecture as well.

As to the 4' - 6' strides. I am 6' 3" and I can easily stride in that range. I know so because my normal stride is about a yard, which is very helpfull when golfing.

No great effort needed to add a foot and a half to the stride.

 

[Starrman]

Quick Question

To anyone who might know:

Are the new species that are found, usually species that have never been directly observed before - or just animals that many people had seen but nobody had seen one that knew that it was not a classified species?

 

[LAL]

Fair enough, but to say it was a genuine Big Foot is conjecture as well.

Or inference.
I think it's safe to say it wasn't deer.

As to the 4' - 6' strides. I am 6' 3" and I can easily stride in that range. I know so because my normal stride is about a yard, which is very helpfull when golfing.

No great effort needed to add a foot and a half to the stride.

Did you do this at an altitude of 4800' and leave tracks on a dirt road to be spotted by helicopter?
How many 6'3" hoaxers do you know altogether?

 

[LAL]

I don’t wonder, I know exactly why accredited people don’t speak out. Who would? If you were working in some conventional arena with public moneys, you would probably hesitate from making any statement of a field that (from the point of view of many) is squarely in the lunatic fringe.

Krantz' career was hurt by that.

Excellent! I think we get that and I’ll look forward to reading it.

I think it's this one:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v18n1a5.php

Don’t hold your breath. It’s very likely we’ll get some other GOP dufus.

>turns blue<

I don’t really pay much heed to the 80% of the ‘merican public “believes.” stuff.

Another poll says 48% believe the world was created about 10,000 years ago.

Most of them probably don’t care one way or the other. Bigfoot resides in a kind of netherworld to most people, somewhere between an involuntary extraterrestrial colonoscopy and bat-boy.

Sleep paralysis and photo-doctoring respectively (or is it just really bad makeup?)

I guess for myself; I’m more interested in the sociology of the phenomena than the creature it’s self. If it were found I would be fascinated. If it were discovered to be some kind of massive hoax. One that became real due to the uncoordinated activity of many people over decades if not millennia, I would find that even *more* fascinating.

I'm interested in the rather hysterical rejection of the whole idea I run into sometimes and a willingness to believe fake feet (clown feet, in one debate) and costumes can possibly account for it all.
How would uncoordinated hoaxing produce the same dermal ridges 20 years and hundreds of miles apart?
(I know, Daegling said it could be done by long distance telephone. He didn't produce the phone bills and that was another place where I had to put the book down.)

 

[Starrman]

Did you do this at an altitude of 4800' and leave tracks on a dirt road to be spotted by helicopter?

I did not, but somebody could have. People have accomplished some amazing things for unknown motives.

Have a thumb through the guniess book of world records to see just how clever and talented people can be when they are focused on getting something done.

How many 6'3" hoaxers do you know altogether?

Great point. How many Bigfeet do you know altogether?

Let it be known that I hope that you are right, but I don't think you apply your skepticism the same way to Bigfoot as you do toward the hoaxers.

edited to add an 'r'.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

Krantz' career was hurt by that.

That really blows. If your honestly pursuing a scientific objective, keeping your nose clean and staying objective. Doing this kind of research should enhance your career.

But, we are dealing with emotional, irrational humans here. That’s why I maintain that only a specimen will convince most people.

Another poll says 48% believe the world was created about 10,000 years ago.

I thought it was 6,ooo years ago.

Sleep paralysis and photo-doctoring respectively (or is it just really bad makeup?)

Hey hey HEY! No cracks about Batboy! Batboy's da bomb!

I'm interested in the rather hysterical rejection of the whole idea I run into sometimes and a willingness to believe fake feet (clown feet, in one debate) and costumes can possibly account for it all.
How would uncoordinated hoaxing produce the same dermal ridges 20 years and hundreds of miles apart?
(I know, Daegling said it could be done by long distance telephone. He didn't produce the phone bills and that was another place where I had to put the book down.) [/B]

Well, you can always tell when a debunker has gone too far, it’s when their probable explanation is far more complex than the fantastic explanation. I would guess that if the tracks were the work of a hoaxer than it was the same hoaxer twenty years apart. Unusual to say the least but not impossible. Otherwise I’d have to admit that I don’t know how the various tracks seem to be made by the same individual over many years—It could be a real animal.

I’m actually quite astounded that plaster casts of footprints could produce dermal ridges at all, even in mud.

 

[Starrman]

How would uncoordinated hoaxing produce the same dermal ridges 20 years and hundreds of miles apart?

I lost track of the cite for this, how did they know the tracks were made 20 years apart?

 

[LTC8K6]

I still see nothing that a good hoaxer would balk at.

I make a fake left footprint, then I go far enough along for an impossible stride, then I make a fake right footprint. We hide our own prints as we go along.

Better yet, I'll do the lefts, and my buddy will do the rights. We'll do a 10 foot stride to really impress the believers.

I knew in grade school that primates have footprints, as well as fingerprints.

Krantz is a nut, that's why he lost respect, imo.

I have no idea whether there is an unknown large primate running around in the dense woods of the U.S.A.

I would love it if such were discovered. I was a huge bigfoot fan as a child.

I am just not buying any of the evidence I have seen so far, nor any claims about how impossible it is to do this or that.

 

[LTC8K6]

I’m actually quite astounded that plaster casts of footprints could produce dermal ridges at all, even in mud.

The hoaxer wouldn't be a bit surprised, since he made sure they'd show.

 

[LAL]

That really blows. If your honestly pursuing a scientific objective, keeping your nose clean and staying objective. Doing this kind of research should enhance your career.

But, we are dealing with emotional, irrational humans here. That’s why I maintain that only a specimen will convince most people.

[/B ]

Krantz was disliked by many in the "Bigfoot community" for advocating killing one in order to convince science.
He spent much of his free time trying to do that.

[B ]
I thought it was 6,ooo years ago.

Originally posted by The Odd Emperor
[/B ]


+/- 4000 years.

[B ]
Hey hey HEY! No cracks about Batboy! Batboy's da bomb!

[/B ]
I apologize to Batboy and his little dog too.

[B ]Well, you can always tell when a debunker has gone too far, it’s when their probable explanation is far more complex than the fantastic explanation.

[/B ]

Applying Occam's Razor:


http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/LocalsSC.pdf

[B ]
I would guess that if the tracks were the work of a hoaxer than it was the same hoaxer twenty years apart. Unusual to say the least but not impossible. Otherwise I’d have to admit that I don’t know how the various tracks seem to be made by the same individual over many years—It could be a real animal.

[/B ]


Jimmy Chilcutt found this compelling. It wasn't the same animal but they were the same type of ridges. Chilcutt was sceptical to begin with, BTW. He called Meldrum to see if he could be of assistance. Meldrum has over 100 casts in his collection. Chilcutt is the only expert on primate prints.
In the case of Bluff Creek, three or four individuals were identifiable by their prints.

[B ]I’m actually quite astounded that plaster casts of footprints could produce dermal ridges at all, even in mud.

Not to mention sweat pores. (They're irregular in shape, not to be confused with air bubbles.) Krantz showed some of them to DR. Tim White. Plaster isn't the most sensitive material and not all casts show them, nor were they noticed right away.
The Skookum Cast shows hair imprints and friction ridges on the heel. They had a good supply of casting compound on hand, but came close to running out before the impression was filled.
That cast and the opinion of the top primate anatomist in the country should have settled the matter, but it didn't.

 

[LAL]

The hoaxer wouldn't be a bit surprised, since he made sure they'd show.

Do you honestly think professors of anatomy are so stupid they can't spot a fake?

 

[LAL]

I did not, but somebody could have

I take it you aren't familiar with the west slope of the Cascades.
Let me know when you have some actual evidence.

Great point. How many Bigfeet do you know altogether?

None, but having lived in an area where sightings were almost common, I see nothing improbable about this at all. I know the terrain, the cover, the food sources............Skamania County is 86% national forest and contains Mt.St. Helens with much room to spare. It has a population of about 10,000, mostly along the river.

Let it be known that I hope that you are right, but I don't think you apply your skepticism the same way to Bigfoot as you do toward the hoaxers.

What makes you think that? Have you read any of Dennett's arguments? Daegling's?
Each piece of evidence should be looked at objectively.

 

[LAL]

That really blows. If your honestly pursuing a scientific objective, keeping your nose clean and staying objective. Doing this kind of research should enhance your career.

But, we are dealing with emotional, irrational humans here. That’s why I maintain that only a specimen will convince most people.


Krantz was disliked by many in the "Bigfoot community" for advocating killing one in order to convince science.
He spent much of his free time trying to do that.


[B ]
I thought it was 6,ooo years ago. [/B]


+/- 4000 years. 6000 was Bishop Ussher's dating. Some YECers don't accept it.




Hey hey HEY! No cracks about Batboy! Batboy's da bomb!



I apologize to Batboy and his little dog too.


[B ]Well, you can always tell when a debunker has gone too far, it’s when their probable explanation is far more complex than the fantastic explanation.

[/B]

Applying Occam's Razor:


http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/LocalsSC.pdf



I would guess that if the tracks were the work of a hoaxer than it was the same hoaxer twenty years apart. Unusual to say the least but not impossible. Otherwise I’d have to admit that I don’t know how the various tracks seem to be made by the same individual over many years—It could be a real animal.
[/B ]


Jimmy Chilcutt found this compelling. It wasn't the same animal but they were the same type of ridges. Chilcutt was sceptical to begin with, BTW. He called Meldrum to see if he could be of assistance.
Chilcutt is the only expert on primate prints.
In the case of Bluff Creek, three or four individuals were identifiable by their prints.



I’m actually quite astounded that plaster casts of footprints could produce dermal ridges at all, even in mud.



Not to mention sweat pores. (They're irregular in shape, not to be confused with air bubbles.) Krantz showed some of them to DR. Tim White. Plaster isn't the most sensitive material and not all casts show them, nor were they noticed right away.
The Skookum Cast shows hair imprints and friction ridges on the heel. They had a good supply of casting compound on hand, but came close to running out before the impression was filled.
That cast and the opinion of the top primate anatomist in the country should have settled the matter, but it didn't.