Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LTC8K6]

Back to that image again...

Let's ignore the obviously fake look of the back of the heel, like Dr. Meldrum did.

If your heel went that far into the ground, how come your ball and toes barely make a dent?

This is Meldrum's illustration of the supposed way this print was made by bigfoot. He has the ball about the same depth as the heel, and an obvious pressure rigde in the middle.

In the photo, the ball is nowhere near the depth of the heel by it's shadow, and there is no shadow at all from a pressure ridge.

Is there even a pressure ridge at all?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

In the illustration, there is no way to account for the foot going from the heel to the toe without colapsing the underlying soil in between..



The photo looks like someone( thing? ) dug their heel into the ground then followed through with the step.


I believe you mentioned that their should be a complete trackway of prints like this, if it is in anyway typical..




Just in case someone ( who would that be ? ) assumes we are discussing whether the prints were actually made by a Bigfoot or not; we're ( me anyway ) not. We're just pointing out this ridiculous analyzation, trying to pass as science.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, I am convinced that the print was made by Ray Wallace due to the general look and the heel print.

Even if you stop and dig your heel in, you'd get a smooth heel print in the end, not that terraced/stepped look.

I think this is a P/G film track, but it is very hard to tell for sure if that's where it is from.

The print seems to be at odds with Patty's stride as well.

 

[Thurkon]

In the illustration, there is no way to account for the foot going from the heel to the toe without colapsing the underlying soil in between..

The photo looks like someone( thing? ) dug their heel into the ground then followed through with the step.

I believe you mentioned that their should be a complete trackway of prints like this, if it is in anyway typical..

Just in case someone ( who would that be ? ) assumes we are discussing whether the prints were actually made by a Bigfoot or not; we're ( me anyway ) not. We're just pointing out this ridiculous analyzation, trying to pass as science.

Come on.

This is D. Jeffrey Meldrum we're talking about here. You're questioning his expertise? How many Bigfoot books and DVDs have you sold this week?

Who just happens to be the foremost expert on Bigfoot ass impressions?

Who spends a good chunk of his waking hours staring at casts of Ray Wallace's clown sandals?

Let's all hear it for D. Jeffrey.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, I am convinced that the print was made by Ray Wallace due to the general look and the heel print.

Even if you stop and dig your heel in, you'd get a smooth heel print in the end, not that terraced/stepped look.

I think this is a P/G film track, but it is very hard to tell for sure if that's where it is from.

The print seems to be at odds with Patty's stride as well.

The pronounced angle across the ends of the toes does not look like the typical Squatch foot, including other Bluff Creek and Blue Creek Mt. It certainly does not appear to match the sole of the foot in the PGF..


I believe the explanation for the variety of prints at Bluff Creek, is that there was a family of Squatches ( still missing, presumed dead and vaporized ) in the area..


Have I missed the actual Patty trackway, that Patterson supposedly filmed and made casts from ?

Edit O.K., I see the print we are looking at now, is supposed to be Patty's... They have got to be kidding...


How do they go from the flat feet we see in the film to this ?... Sheesh .............

 

[LTC8K6]

Our hoaxer made the whole print first with the wooden foot.

Then he went back and beat the heel in deeper.

That is what caused the back of the heel to look like that.

That is what caused the raised and cracked dirt in the middle of the print.

That is why the raised dirt is sort of falling onto the front of the track. It was pushed up and forward when the heel print was made deeper.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here is another interview with Green

http://www.bigfootproject.org/interviews/john_green.html

And a pic

I thought I would find an explanation in the interview, that these were an example of silly fake prints.

Looks like Green is hot on the trail of Alderfoot...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

As far as I can tell, Meldrum is saying that the print is from Patty.

If so, that puts a hell of a dent in the P/G film's credibility.

A chunk of wood and a hammer and you get one heck of a complicated explanation.

Ray should have won an Oscar.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The print shows the midtarsal break. There are many other examples.

Funny, this is the only print I have seen with the ' mid tarsal ' break ? Have any others ?


This sounds like Meldrum's ' long toe ' assertion.

 

[Thurkon]

Here is another interview with Green

http://www.bigfootproject.org/interviews/john_green.html

And a pic

I thought I would find an explanation in the interview, that these were an example of silly fake prints.

Looks like Green is hot on the trail of Alderfoot...

That Green interview is quite a hoot.

Something's making them. Yeah, right. It's getting awfully close to fifty years ago. No explanation for those footprints, other than the existence of an animal with feet like that and sufficient weight, has been presented.

Oh...it's been presented. It's not going to sell any more copies of your book, but it's been presented...

JG: There could be a inherited genetic reaction. It's way beyond my expertise. They're talking now about the possibility that sasquatch communicate in ultrasound. That might cause a reaction in us if that turns out to be the case.

BIP: By the same token, based on some reports, it seems possible that they can detect infrared light emissions from camera traps, etc.

Lordy lord. Ultrasound? Infrared? Anything to explain away the fact that we can't get a decent picture of a squatch.

For example, right now, we have the proof - absolute and indisputable - that the Patterson film is genuine.

Argh...what a clown. Indisputable proof...

BIP: At one time you said if the Skookum cast was investigated by reputable scientists who came to the conclusion that it was authentic, you might be persuaded that a body might not be necessary to prove that the creature exists.

JG: I'm now in the same position with regard to the film. The proof is there in the film.

That's it, guys! The verdict is in. Bigfoot exists. Debate over.

You can all move on to the Loch Ness thread.

 

[tube]

A couple of posts in this thread touched on sweat pores in casts so I thought I would chime in. My investigations focused on ridges and not on pores, but since they are connected phenomena it was inevitable that I would come to look at the sweat pore issue.

First off, HUMAN sweat pores are really, really small. While there is no doubt that proper casting cement and a compliant, plastic substrate can capture HUMAN dermal ridges, I'm not yet sure sweat pores can OR CANNOT be captured in a cast. Part of my ignorance is due to poor optics on my part. I own an 8 power plastic lens loupe. My own sweat pores can barely be made out with it. I can see small pits in some of the better casts I've made of my own hand in Play-Doh (an outstanding, underated test medium) and natural clay that might correspond to sweat pores, but the problem is I can't resolve my own pores to tell if there is a match or not.

For the "sweat pores in casts" advocates I would suggest caution. There do exist tiny bubbles that can mimic what is being interpreted as sweat pores. When looking for "sweat pores" in a cast I always check the "superior" side of a cast (the side not in contact with the substrate) to act as a control. I often find small bubbles.

I'm very cautious about the whole "sweat pore" thing for several reasons:

1. I'm testing under near ideal condtions with pure substrates. Real world conditions with real world soil is not as likely to be as good.

2. Casts often contain tiny bubbles. How do we differentiate between random bubbles and what could be real sweat pores?

3. My tests involve CLEAN hands and feet pressing once into test media to create an impression. A Sasquatch is going to be barefoot all the time. Can dirty feet still impress sweat pores into natural soil?

Grover Krantz seemed much more confident in his assertions than I am. I do not deny he could be correct, I'm simply not willing to believe his assertions just on his say-so. I would like to see a better demonstration before I believe this.

For what it's worth, I discussed this issue briefly with Jeff Meldrum. While I'm hesitant to speak on his behalf, I got the impression that he came to roughly the same conclusions I have. His conclusions are based on tests he has done, like mine are.

So what is my tentative conclusion about "sweat pores" in casts? First off, I have not done tests specifically to determine whether it is or is not possible to capture detail that fine. I do not dismiss the notion outright, but I feel that arguments for sweat-pores-in-casts are not yet well demonstrated.

By the way, are Sasquatch's sweat pores bigger than human sweat pores?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Great info Tube !


The point the people who say they are seeing pores are overlooking, is not whether the casting medium can define the pores, but whether the medium where the impression was made can. I suggest it is highly unlikely, as only the finest dust would be likely to do so. And as I pointed out earlier, it is absurd to suggest such a medium would retain the print during a casting operation, or under almost any outdoor condition you can imagine..

By the way, are Sasquatch's sweat pores bigger than human sweat pores?

They are if the Bigfootologists say they are ...

P.S.

The size of human sweat pores ?

Average = 50 microns

 

[Thurkon]

Wait a minute...we don't have to talk about pores and dermal ridges anymore, guys. Green says the PG film is genuine and that's enough to prove the creature exists. Bigfoot is real. That's it. Game over, man.

Let's start lobbying Congress to get some government funding to protect the 2000-6000 shy, fearless, docile, agressive, peaceful, tree-breaking, cabin-smashing, nocturnal, day-strutting, elusive, road-crossing buggers.

How about it?

 

[LAL]

If you had bothered to read the thread instead of merely copping pictures from it (which don't suport your case, BTW) you would know Ray Wallace had already moved to Washington when these trackways were discovered.

These are another photo of Wallace's feet held by Dale and a couple of phony casts Wallace allegedly made, respectively.

From woltrax:

"It's worth noting that Jim Chilcutt felt the 13 inch prints from Onion Mountain showed dermal ridges that matched the pattern of other alleged sasquatch tracks and exhibited signs that they were made with a flexible foot and not the Wallace fake wooden feet, because the foot indentations showed pushing inside the track instead of a straight ledge."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=180

Re the clear print from the Bluff Creek 1967 (with film and two witnesses), it clearly shows the pressure ridge. There was a lot of variation in those prints. More photos can be seen in Murphy's book.

Try reading the text:

"In October 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured on film a female Bigfoot retreating across a loamy sandbar on Bluff Creek, in northern California. The film provides a view of the plantar surface of the subject's foot, as well as several unobstructed views of step cycles. In addition to a prominent elongated heel, a midtarsal break is apparent during midstance and considerable flexion of the midtarsus can be seen during the swing phase. The subject left a long series of deeply impressed footprints. Patterson cast single examples of a right and a left footprint. The next day the site was visited by Robert Laverty, a timber management assistant and his sales crew. He took several photographs including one of a footprint exhibiting a pronounced pressure ridge in the midtarsal region. This same footprint, along with nine others in a series, was cast two weeks later by Bob Titmus, a Canadian taxidermist. A model of inferred skeletal anatomy is proposed here to account for the distinctive midtarsal pressure ridge and "half-tracks" in which the heel impression is absent. In this model the Sasquatch foot lacks a fixed longitudinal arch, but instead exhibits a high degree of midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint. Following the midtarsal break, a plastic substrate may be pushed up in a pressure ridge as propulsive force is exerted through the midfoot. An increased power arm in the foot lever system is achieved by heel elongation as opposed to arch fixation."

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

 

[LAL]

Great info Tube !


The point the people who say they are seeing pores are overlooking, is not whether the casting medium can define the pores, but whether the medium where the impression was made can. I suggest it is highly unlikely, as only the finest dust would be likely to do so. And as I pointed out earlier, it is absurd to suggest such a medium would retain the print during a casting operation, or under almost any outdoor condition you can imagine..

Most, if not all, of the compelling casts were taken of footprints found in mud. This was pointed out near the beginning of the thread.

From tube:

"2. Casts often contain tiny bubbles. How do we differentiate between random bubbles and what could be real sweat pores?"

By the shape, as Krantz pointed out, and, I believe, tested experimentally after Tim White raised the possibilty of the pores being air bubbles from prior castings.

 

[LAL]

That Green interview is quite a hoot.
>snip<

The casts he's holding appear to be casts or copies of casts from Skeena River Slough, Terrace, British Columbia. The originals were cast by Bob Titmus in 1976. The tracks were found by children. Titmus investigated and made the casts. A photo can be seen on pg. 106 of Meet the Sasquatch, which you might want to read.

The tracks measured 15.5" long and 6.5" wide. There were about a dozen of them. They had a walking stride of just over 7'.


You want me to believe Ray Wallace was in B.C. in 1976 too? And had a 7' stride? Maybe you should do another 16 minutes of research before you make any more absurd statements. Your copy-catting of Bill isn't furthering your case, IMO, but you are doing a good job of demonstrating what I mean when I use the term "scoftic".

That's it, guys! The verdict is in. Bigfoot exists. Debate over.

You're right. They exist. You can go home now.

 

[LTC8K6]

Most, if not all, of the compelling casts were taken of footprints found in mud.

Assumes facts not in evidence. There are no compelling casts.

I like how you try to slip these "facts" in though.

She's crafty.....

 

[LTC8K6]

The obviously hoaxed "pressure ridge print" has changed my mind about the P/G film.

I am now certain that Patty is just somebody in a suit.

Maybe it was Mugato from Star Trek? He's another late 60's ape/man character.

 

[LTC8K6]

And had a 7' stride?

Just for the record, a hoaxer does not need to have a 7' stride to make a set of fake footprints with a 7' stride.

Please stop parroting stride lengths as if they remove the possibility of a hoax.

 

[Correa Neto]

That was another one of LAL´s hollow claims -that Star Trek TOS had a decent budget, so they coud make nice creatures for the time, and yet could not afford a Patty suit...

TOS had a nice decent US$ 186.00 / episode budget.

How do I know it?

Read Shatner.