Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[William Parcher]

Matt, if these dermal ridges are real then is Bigfoot 100% real? I mean, is it rational that barefoot humans with ridiculously large feet (really larger than any person) are walking around in remote wilderness areas?

Even if we toss out all of the dermal ridge argument, we are still left with bipedal footprints that rule out human, yes? Maybe I am missing an alternative hypothesis, but it seems that it is all Bigfoot or all hoax.

What could explain a discernable and plaster-casted gigantic 'hominoid' footprint that is not a Bigfoot or a hoax?

 

[tube]

Matt, if these dermal ridges are real then is Bigfoot 100% real?

Yes. But of course this applies to all pieces of purported Sasquatch evidence; hair, footprints, scat, photos, movies, or butt-prints. I think your point is the converse; if Bigfoot does not exist then these tracks, and the textures that are claimed to be dermal ridges, were not made by Bigfoot, and this of course is true.

 

[William Parcher]

Matt (tube), I'll say more but it may be redundant or obvious.

The belief in Bigfoot may be positive, agnostic or negative. But the proposed animal itself must either exist or not exist. Negative belief must rationally stop with the aquisition of a carcass or body part. Positive belief does not have to stop with any proof that any single incident or evidence is false.

This sets the stage for belief going on ad infinitum no matter what happens. IOW, if Bigfoot is a real creature, then a piece of evidence could show that. If Bigfoot is a myth, then no piece of evidence could show that.

 

[William Parcher]

So Matt, are we stuck in this sort of purgatory of possibly examining evidence presented by people and not by Bigfoot?

There seems to be a built-in disparity between Bigfoot belief and disbelief. The believers hold an argumentative advantage if they cannot be stopped by anything. Skeptics can be stopped by physical confirmation of Bigfoot.

It is extremely common for believers to 'fall back' upon the credentials or persona of any particular supporter of Bigfoot. They might as well come right out and say that Chilcutt is too perfect of a human to be wrong, therefore Bigfoot must exist. The argument shifts from 'Bigfoot vs no Bigfoot' to 'good man Chilcutt vs no Bigfoot'.

There has been talk of fully longitudinal dermal ridges on some foot castings. This is unknown for any primate. Is it being suggested that this is acceptable evidence because Bigfoot is already an undocumented primate? If so, should we not be surprised if the next new marmoset species found in Brazil has three arms?

 

[tube]

What could explain a discernable and plaster-casted gigantic 'hominoid' footprint that is not a Bigfoot or a hoax?

Good point, and I agree with you. The tracks themselves are all the marbles, either they were made by a Sasquatch or they are man-made hoaxes. Why the dermal ridge stuff interests me is that if offers an additional method of analysis of these purported Sasquatch tracks.

This again is one of the reasons that I define myself as a Saquatch agnostic. The tracks are a fact. The surface textures on the casts are a fact. But it is the method of analysis of this class of evidence which is more debatable. When the methods of analysis are cutting edge and/or questionable then what do we really know?

I will certainly agree with the weak skeptical argument that asserts "the dermal ridge evidence is not conclusive". I would agree with the weak skeptical argument that dermal ridges "could be faked", but again, I feel that is a hollow argument. I cannot agree with the strongly skeptical argument that "the ridges are fakes, made by man". Why not? It has simply not been demonstrated. I can agree with the weak advocate argument that asserts that "these dermal ridges could have been made by a Sasquatch". I cannot agree with the strong advocate argument that "these ridges could have only been made by a Sasquatch."

Sorry to ramble, but I think my answer to your question is YES, either the tracks are made by Bigfoot or they are man-made fakes. But the surface textures on the resulting casts may have a more complex solution, and this is what interests me.

 

[tube]

So Matt, are we stuck in this sort of purgatory of possibly examining evidence presented by people and not by Bigfoot?

Don't blame me! I'm trying to resolve what can be resolved.

 

[William Parcher]

Good point, and I agree with you. The tracks themselves are all the marbles, either they were made by a Sasquatch or they are man-made hoaxes. Why the dermal ridge stuff interests me is that if offers an additional method of analysis of these purported Sasquatch tracks.

Is the 'field' objective enough to quickly embrace a blanket disconfirmation of Chilcutt if such could be shown? Virtually the entire argument (pro vs con) of the dermal evidence already goes on within the community of Bigfoot believers. There are no conferences or symposiums for Bigfoot disbelievers. Chilcutt lives as a God within the Bigfoot believer subculture.

This again is one of the reasons that I define myself as a Saquatch agnostic.

Is this because your personal eyewitness experience of the dermal ridges has caused this, or because the man Chilcutt (and or those who have supported his testimony) has caused this?

The tracks are a fact. The surface textures on the casts are a fact.

A fact they are. But their interpretation is subjective. Additionally, there is the temporal question of provenance and chain of custody. I suppose there would be ways of faking dermal ridges on a print that has been previously cast without them. A hoaxer has all the time in the world to perfect what they want to do before releasing it to the world. Almost invariably, 'Bigfoot evidence' is presented to the subculture before mainstream science (if it ever is).

Though the surface texture is a fact at any given moment, it contains no crystal ball that tells you how, when or where that that texture came to be a part of that plaster.

But it is the method of analysis of this class of evidence which is more debatable. When the methods of analysis are cutting edge and/or questionable then what do we really know?

'Cutting edge' is a good term. Chilcutt is stone cold ignorant about the exact thing that the Bigfoot subculture needs to know. He can't distinguish real Bigfoot dermals from fake, because there is no such cutting edge. No matter how intelligent and descriminatory he is about human fingerprints, he is an infant (like us) when it comes to Bigfoot details. There are no university courses nor amateur ones for determining the difference between Bigfoot dermal impressions and anything else. There is no science related to this. If Chilcutt were to say that these dermals are evidence of an unknown modern bipedal primate, then he is inventing a brand new science. Lord help him. He believes Bigfoot is real, yes?

I would agree with the weak skeptical argument that dermal ridges "could be faked", but again, I feel that is a hollow argument. I cannot agree with the strongly skeptical argument that "the ridges are fakes, made by man". Why not? It has simply not been demonstrated.

If the evidence is hoaxed, then the 'demonstration' may not be known until the individual hoaxer comes forward and demonstrates. There is such a thing as an unsolved crime, which was a crime nonetheless.

But the surface textures on the resulting casts may have a more complex solution, and this is what interests me.

Okay, but complex in what way? Are you talking about an unitended hoax stacked on top of an intended hoax?

"I faked an 18 inch Bigfoot track, but I never imagined that the plaster would form dermal ridges all by itself until I lifted the casting off the ground. Talk about my day be lucky!"

Are you suggesting that possible pseudodermals are causing people to authenticate fake tracks? If so, there is still a warehouse full of tracks without dermals that have been 'authenticated' by Krantz, Meldrum, etc. If dermal evidence were thoroughly debunked, the believers would simply fall back to them. Meldrum's 'mid-tarsal break' of the Patty imprint stands independant of any dermal evidence, in their book.

If Bigfoot is a complete myth, how can its support ever possibly be stopped now after what has been written and said?

 

[William Parcher]

Matt, do you have any opinions why these footprint castings (including Skookum) are not turned over, en masse, to scientific institutions as evidence of an undescribed American bipedal ape... as opposed to held tightly within the Bigfoot subculture?

Does the subculture already 'know something' that the rest of the world doesn't?

Does the subculture already understand itself enough to know the boundary of how far you can push a myth into mass culture before the spotlight becomes burning hot upon itself?

There are profits to be made on the belief in Bigfoot. This comes from the sale of books, videos, lectures, expeditions, etc. There are scant profits to be made on Bigfoot skepticism. America already largely believes that Bigfoot is a myth. How are you going to peddle information that points to it being a myth?

Would you pay $24.95 for a book titled, "Interesting Stories and Confirmational Evidence That Americans Like the Taste of McDonalds Hamburgers"?

 

[tube]

Though the surface texture is a fact at any given moment, it contains no crystal ball that tells you how, when or where that that texture came to be a part of that plaster.

Mr. Parcher; I can tell you are an intellegent and thoughful person. I believe your arguments are sound and by and large I agree with them. Perhaps I should scale back the scope of my claims and arguments. Frankly, I'm simply not comfortable discussing multiple ideas simultaneously. What our friend LAL does is not my style.

Just to make sure we are on the same page, have you read the BFF thread entitled "Dermal Ridges and Casting Artifacts"? Hopefully this hyperlink will work;

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11363

I have not yet written up a paper for publication on this topic. I have given the results of my investigations at two Sasquatch seminars. Jeff Meldrum asked me to create a paper for a forthcoming monograph of his. So until publication, the BFF thread is a reasonable introduction to my methodology and findings. There are various pieces of the puzzle that I believe are relevant which are not included in this thread.

What exactly am I claiming? I claim that the ridges on John Green's Onion Mountain cast are casting artifacts and not evidence of a primate's dermal ridges. Clearly, the Onion Mountain cast did not contain a "crystal ball". It took me about 8 months of tests to figure out what was going on with this cast. What I'm willing to suggest is that there may be additional methodologies that can be used to study surface features on purported Sasquatch casts.

Why did I jump into this thread in the first place? Well ego, obviously, but I simply want to make sure everyone is clear on what these novel findings do and do not mean. This new evidence does not imply that all dermal ridge evidence is bogus.

 

[William Parcher]

Mr. Parcher; I can tell you are an intellegent and thoughful person. I believe your arguments are sound and by and large I agree with them.

Ditto. I'm curious what it was like to be a lecturer at a Bigfoot conference. Did you find objectivity, to the extent that folks would welcome any information that disconfirmed evidence of Bigfoot?

There is such a plethora of Bigfoot 'evidence' that no skeptical straw can break the camel's back.

Even if every single bit of evidence was shown to be a hoax (including Gimlin confessing), there are enough people claiming personal eyewitness to Bigfoot to "keep the patient out of intensive care".

Just to make sure we are on the same page, have you read the BFF thread entitled "Dermal Ridges and Casting Artifacts"? Hopefully this hyperlink will work;

Read it. Love it. The social dynamics of your proclamations fascinate me. I enjoy the review citations of 'rolling eyes' during your address at the Bigfoot conference. Damn, those boys want this monkey to exist in a very big way!

So until publication, the BFF thread is a reasonable introduction to my methodology and findings. There are various pieces of the puzzle that I believe are relevant which are not included in this thread.

Well, until there is a Bigfoot Bullcrap Forum (BBF), that is the only place to introduce your stuff.

What exactly am I claiming? I claim that the ridges on John Green's Onion Mountain cast are casting artifacts and not evidence of a primate's dermal ridges. Clearly, the Onion Mountain cast did not contain a "crystal ball". It took me about 8 months of tests to figure out what was going on with this cast. What I'm willing to suggest is that there may be additional methodologies that can be used to study surface features on purported Sasquatch casts.

Okay, but you know that by showing that these Onion Mountain dermals are a casting artifact you do not show it wasn't a Bigfoot that made those tracks. I'm already anticipating the subculture's response to you. If you use plaster (or whatever) to cast a genuine Bigfoot footprint, you may end up with artifacts that look like dermal ridges. But hey bro, you still got yourself a Bigfoot and that's what counts. Bigfoot has existed and been documented before and after Matt Crowley was born.

Why did I jump into this thread in the first place? Well ego, obviously, but I simply want to make sure everyone is clear on what these novel findings do and do not mean.

What? A personal admission of ego? You had to go any say that, didn't you? You know what, Crowley? The Bigfoot crowd doesn't deserve you!

What do you think is going to happen if you play with them? They are going to want a live Chilcutt vs Crowley match fight in the ring.

Will you be a plenary speaker at next year's "Bigfoot Never Existed Symposium" in Punkatunkabump, Pennsylvania?

 

[tube]

Yes, I think you recognize that there is significant social dynamic to the world of Bigfootery. I was first invited to the Seattle Symposium because I had given preliminary lectures there and I think they recognized I had novel information to publicize. As far as the Bellingham conference, Jimmy Chilcutt canceled some time beforehand. The symposium organizer, Jason Valenti, Asked Mr. Chilcutt to recommend a replacement and Chilcutt recommended me.

Despite that tacit thumbs up, I was still sweating bullets before speaking. Owen Caddy warned my I might get roasted for my findings. If not right there, then later on the Internet. I worried he would be right. Much to my surprise, this did not happen. In fact Jeff Meldrum went so far as to publicly claim my findings were a "slam dunk". I bring this up not to stroke my own ego but to suggest that the world of Bigfootery is not as monolithically close minded as you might suppose. I myself was worried that Bigfooters would be inflexable zealots. This was not the case. Consider that I was a total unknown as far as Bigfootery goes, and coming on with findings that went against the grain.

I feel I've gotten my basic point across. If you want to continue debate, you might invite LAL to this thread, or even jump onto the BFF. They have too few smart skeptics. I have this feeling that I'm being baited into an argument, as if I was some sort of apologist for Bigfootery. I'm clearly interested in the subject, but I'm not an advocate. I'm highly skeptical of certain elements within Bigfootery, but I do not dismiss the entire enterprise outright. I don't shy away from debate, as debate and skepticism are healthy but I reccomend you find a different opponent.

 

[LTC8K6]

If the 67 Onion Mountain cast is the same as the 67 Blue Creek cast, then Chilcutt's report on the 97 Elkins Creek cast would seem to be devastating to dermal ridges.

Notice that the ridges run lengthwise along the side of the foot. This longitudinal flow of the ridges is not found in the human or known non-human primate. This ridge flow is consistent with the ridge flow of the 1967 Blue Creek Mountain Road casting and the 1984 Walla Walla, Table Spring casting.

This 1967 Blue Creek cast is pretty obviously a Ray Wallace special.

"A 13-inch Sasquatch track from Blue Creek Mountain photographed by René Dahinden"

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/classics/bluecreek.html

It even appeared to show the texture of the skin on tne bottom of the foot, grooved in tiny lines running the length of the print.

 

[Thurkon]

There have been fakes, but they're not as sophisticated as this. Invariably, they seem to be carved wooden feet. The hoaxes that have been exposed were amateurish and no one's produced any latex feet to my knowlege.

But they could...that's the point, Lu. Dermal ridges aren't necessarily evidence of a Bigfoot. They could be faked.

It's just bizaare to me that in extraordinary claims of this sort you approach it with the preconceived notion that Bigfoot must exist. Therefore, all evidence is real until absolutely proven a fake, when...if you were objectively, scientifically assessing it...the opposite should apply.

It seems your idea of an exposed hoax and others' is very different. You seem to only admit to hoaxing if the attempt is amateurish and easily detectable. A clever hoaxer, therefore, could probably slip under your loose criteria. And probably has. Not that I'm thinking of any female Bigfoot in particular...

I've never claimed such things couldn't be faked, but I find it highly unlikely a hoaxer would go to all this trouble to plant footprints in remote areas where the chance of discovery would be almost zero.

Unless the person finding the tracks is involved in the hoax? Huh? Could it be?

Never underestimate the dedication and determination of a hoaxer. When I look at some of those crop circles my head hurts thinking how much work it must have been.

 

[LTC8K6]

Basically we've got Jimmy Chilcutt examining a cast with dermal ridges and saying it is similar to two other casts with dermal ridges. One of the "similar" casts is clearly a Ray Wallace fake, and it also appears to be the same one Matt has used to demonstrate that the dermal ridges are casting artifacts.

So, it looks to me like we have Jimmy Chilcutt authenticating dermal ridges on Ray Wallace's fake footprints.

Blue Creek/Onion mountain print:

Ray Wallace's fake bigfeet:

 

[Francois Tremblay]

"tube" doesn't understand that the burden of proof is on the one who affirms. There is no skeptic burden of proof. Either it exists or it doesn't.

 

[tube]

"tube" doesn't understand that the burden of proof is on the one who affirms.

Oh, yes I do. I resent your implication that I am that stupid. Please review what exactly I am claiming. I am claiming that the Onion Mountain cast's surface textures are casting artifacts. I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate this and I have posted a link to that thread on the BFF. Further, I jumped into this thread to try and show what can and cannot be inferred from this novel data. I am the one making these claims and the burden of proof is on me. Do you really believe what you are accusing me of or are you just trying to bait me into some flame war?

 

[tube]

So, it looks to me like we have Jimmy Chilcutt authenticating dermal ridges on Ray Wallace's fake footprints.

This has been an issue ever since the death of Ray Wallace. Your observation is valid regardless of my tests. Loren Coleman has made similar sugestions. I would just like to point out a couple of small details. There has been confusion for some time about Blue Creek Mountain and Onion Mountain. The track photo you include is from Blue Creek Mountain. If I am not mistaken, that track is 14.5 inches long. The cast I studied was made on Onion Mountain, and I know this because I asked John Green specifically. The cast I studied, the Onion Mountain cast, is 13" long and is shaped differently. When I started doing my tests I did not know any of this, I was simply reacting to a quick shot of a footprint cast I saw on the Sasquatch; Legend Meets Science DVD.

Onion Mountain and Blue Creek Mountain are within a few miles of each other, and the tracks were found in the same time period.
Did Ray Wallace or an associate of his make the Blue Creek Mountain and Onion Mountain tracks? It's certainly possible. Again, my tests were more to try and figure out how the ridges on the cast got there than to figure out what made the track.

I don't believe we can infer what made the Onion Mountain track from my test data. All I infer is that it was made by something able to transmit significant compressive force. What made the tracks is a separate issue from what my tests entail.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Blue Creek print I posted is 13" long according to the caption, Matt.

 

[LAL]

But they could...that's the point, Lu. Dermal ridges aren't necessarily evidence of a Bigfoot. They could be faked.

"One police expert., Benny Kling, who was the first to examine these (Blue Mountain, 1982) prints, commented that anyone who could engrave ridge detail of such quality and quantity should be making counterfeit money instead. When he realized how consistant the sweat pores were, he changed his mind somewhat, stating that no engraver could have produced that much consistant detail; and this doesn't even take into consideration that the faker must be an expert in dermatoglyphyics as well. Furthur, there is the problem of how the tracks were planted, and so on." Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence, pg. 77

Photo on pg. 76, Figure 38.

And then there's the dysplasia...........

It's just bizaare to me that in extraordinary claims of this sort you approach it with the preconceived notion that Bigfoot must exist. Therefore, all evidence is real until absolutely proven a fake, when...if you were objectively, scientifically assessing it...the opposite should apply.

I suppose you have no preconceived notions that all the evidence must have been faked? I started from as neutral a position as a person can have; I knew nothing about it. I was led to my conclusions by evidence that you seem to know nothing about.

I'm not the scientist in the family, but dismissing something without bothering to study the evidence doesn't seem very scientific to me.

It seems your idea of an exposed hoax and others' is very different. You seem to only admit to hoaxing if the attempt is amateurish and easily detectable. A clever hoaxer, therefore, could probably slip under your loose criteria. And probably has. Not that I'm thinking of any female Bigfoot in particular...

Did any costume makers bother to do a frame by frame analysis, take measurements, compare ratios, calculate size from foot length, or did they just glance at the film on a TV screen and make some snide comments as in some interviews that can be seen on Sasquatch Odyssey? Chris Walas' "line" is another "bell-shaped object". Beckjord was at least more imaginative with his infant and extra babboon heads.

Unless the person finding the tracks is involved in the hoax? Huh? Could it be?

Never underestimate the dedication and determination of a hoaxer. When I look at some of those crop circles my head hurts thinking how much work it must have been.

You really need to do some research on this.

 

[LAL]

Basically we've got Jimmy Chilcutt examining a cast with dermal ridges and saying it is similar to two other casts with dermal ridges. One of the "similar" casts is clearly a Ray Wallace fake, and it also appears to be the same one Matt has used to demonstrate that the dermal ridges are casting artifacts.

So, it looks to me like we have Jimmy Chilcutt authenticating dermal ridges on Ray Wallace's fake footprints.

Blue Creek/Onion mountain print:

Ray Wallace's fake bigfeet:

Wallace's family claimed he faked the Crew tracks in 1958, not Onion and/or Blue Creek Mountain. You can see there's no match there.

Wallace was inspired by real events and may have copied a cast taken by Bob Titmus or copied from a photo of a track. There are three photos on pg. 110 of Meet the Sasquatch of tracks found along Blue Creek Mountain Road, August, 1967. The one photographed by Dahinden (1967) measured 13". The second measured 15" and looks like the photo you posted, only horizontal. The toe prints appear squarish due to shadows.

In the third photo, 15" and 13" prints cross.

On the next page, is a photo of a 15"print (8" across the ball and almost 5" across the heel - human feet can achieve the length, but not the width, BTW), also Blue Creek Mountain, 1967. An identical print was found and cast nine years earlier.

Haven't I managed to teach you anything?