In his book, Krantz relies heavily on information or casts provided by either Marx or Freeman. Most in bigfootdom consider those two information sources highly dubious.
Yes, I got trounced on by Desertyeti and counselor, who got trounced on by Judaculla, on that one...........or those two. See the threads where I got my feet wet on BFF. I got a set of copies of the casts for my efforts, among other things.
Green would agree with you, but Murphy notes some of their evidence has held up to some intense scientific scrutiny. He thinks each piece should be viewed objectively, as do I. Chilcutt found one of Freeman's casts compelling; I'm not sure which one. I doubt it was the "touched-up" one.
I just hope the inclusion of "After retracing the tracks at the site, the professor brought a cast pair back to his lab", is merely an error in reporting and not a deliberate attempt to mislead. I say that because Krantz himself states on page 43 of Big Footprints, "All except the one covered footprint were gone when I examined the site."
I think it was an oversimplification. Dahinden was still on the scene. Krantz measured the fence over which the animal stepped. Haven't we been over this before? 1" difference?
He also says on page 43, "And here I obtained copies of the footprint casts that finally convinced me that the creatures were real."
Ivan Marx cast them at the dump. He was called in because of his known interest. His later hoaxing was pretty crude.
The paragraph you cite implies that Krantz cast tracks and brought them back, when in fact he brought back copies of the other Bossburg tracks. He couldn't possibly have retraced the tracks at the site, because there was only one track left.
Evidently he was shown the route. He said he cast the one that was left, according to the interview you cited. Dahinden recovered the originals and Krantz said that was a story in itself, but he didn't tell it in the book, did he?
Dennett said he could see faint dermal ridges on the originals right where Ed Palma pointed them out on the copies, on which he couldn't see them.
Claiming you can determine ankle structure based on a copy of a cast of a footprint seems quite arrogant. But that's not really surprising, considering Krantz thought himself the equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci.
He determined the placement of the ankle from the cast of the crippled footprint that had spread bones. I think he deduced it from estimated weight as well.
This is what Krantz said in an interview with KXLY-TV reporter John Yager in 1992, "If someone faked [these footprints] with all the subtle hints of anatomy design, he had to be a real genius, an expert at anatomy, very inventive, an original thinker. He had to outclass me in those areas, and I don't think anyone outclasses me in those areas, at least not since Leonardo da Vinci. So I say such a person is impossible, therefore the tracks are real."
He could have classed himself with Gallileo too, but he didn't suffer house arrest for going againt received wisdom. His career suffered. Da Vinci dissected corpses, didn't he, which was illegal at the time? Now I understand the quote a little better. He wasn't referring to da Vinci's artistic abilities.
Noll noted he could be arrogant and that it was a carry-over from his teaching days. Evidently that's what inspired Dahinden to try to sabotage him.
The point seems to be that an ordinary hoaxer, such as Ivan Marx, wouldn't have had the expertise to get all those details right.
It might be interesting to look at the motives of real hoaxers, such as Marx, who evidently wanted to stay on the payroll, and Pickens, who didn't like being called a hick by a researcher and set out to fool investigators with carved feet.
Krantz seemed pretty convinced that he couldn't be fooled by anyone. He writes, "I figured the whole thing out after studying the footprints; any hoaxer had to plan it all out from nothing. This requires an expert anatomist with a very inventive mind, more so than me, and I seriously doubt that any such person exists." (Big Footprints, page 63)
Soooo... the reasoning being... I can't be fooled, so it must be true? Magicians musta hated it when he came to their shows.
When did he go to their shows? He just missed the Minnesota Iceman at a fair, but I don't recall him even mentioning, hm........James Randi?
Here's a VERY interesting article in the Fall 1994 issue of Skeptical Inquirer regarding Krantz and the Bossburg prints.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n5_v18/ai_16334418
I'm guessing you will probably dismiss the article entirely because it was written by Dennett, but you really should read it anyway.
RayG
As I've noted many times, I read it when it first came out. (Early in these debates a poster produced it with a sort of "Ah ha!" noting it was the third article up on a search, as I recall. Google ranks them by number of hits, doesn't it? Does that make Dennett third rate?) I might think he was on to something if he'd so much as produced a library card, preferrably in Ivan Marx' name. The idea of a blow-up of a clubbed foot might be persuasive if the condition weren't consistant with
metatarsus adductus rather than clubfoot.
My comment then and now is, "Pure speculation", or something to that effect.
READ KRANTZ!!!!!! 
