Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[tube]

I learned the hard way during my casting artifact investigations not to read too much into photographs alone. It's much better to examine the real thing if you can. With that caveat in mind, tell me if you see what I see. If you look at the right foot track in this picture you will see a slight ridge near the lateral aspect of the track. Now compare this with the "crack heel" wooden prosthesis of Ray Wallace. Assuming the photograph is not reversed, the "crack heel" wooden fake foot is also a RIGHT foot with a crack near the lateral aspect. Does anyone else see this as I do?
Perhaps someone with greater cyber skills than I can cut and paste a side by side comparison.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Tube,
Do you have a link to the "crack heel" wooden prosthesis ?

 

[tube]

[/B][/QUOTE]

This black and white comparison shot shows a RIGHT foot.

 

[LAL]

You keep ignoring the impetus for proof Lu ...


There is no burden for anyone to show how the prints could have been faked.. The burden is to produce the animal who made the prints...

That's an easy out, isn't it? Claim fakery and hoaxes, be unable to back that up and then claim you didn't have to prove anything in the first place.

Please spare us more diatribes from Meldrum et al...

Meldrum is a respected scientist who has actually done quite a bit of research in this area. His opinions are hardly diatribes. Are you planning to scratch him off the LMS DVD so you won't have to consider the possibility that he's right?

If you don't like what I post, filter me, but don't tell me not to post the opinions of people who have done the actual work.

 

[LAL]

Why? Oh, because it's convenient for you?

Because it's off topic and and irrelevant.

Rare is different from non-existant.

There are no fossils for Chimpanzees, Gorillas or Okapi.

But some have been found, Lu. That's the friggin' point.

The point was there are hardly any Pleistocene fossils in the PNW, even of bear. Most are of animals that lived on grasslands. Fossils are extremely rare for any kind of forest dweller.

Animal remains don't disappear entirely, Lu, for a very long time. Mice don't gobble up large bones in their entirety. You are in the realm of Wackyland now.

I don't want to repeat the story of my mare and filly dying on my land in the Columbia Gorge (too painful), but the few remaining vertebrae were so moss and algae covered after about a year I never would have seen them if I hadn't known where to look. All I found of the filly was part of a jawbone on talus close to a quarter mile away, probably towed off by coyotes. Scavenging starts wth bear and coyotes and ends with microbes. Mice chew on bones left by other scavengers. There may be large pieces left, but not much in the way of large bones.

You really didn't know that?

 

[LAL]

This sounds a lot like the old arguments as to why crop circles couldn't be faked. You really have no respect for human ingenuity.

Just because you and I lack the imagination to explain or replicate this, does not mean that someone else didn't come up with a novel solution. Why would someone do that? Ask the first circle makers why they did it - to see if they could fool people.

Guess what? They did - for a long time.

Do you believe crop circles are made by anyone but man, LAL? Your logic indicates that you should.

My logic indicates nothing of the kind. I've read about the man and his son (in Wales, wasn't it?). Case closed. Not interested.

 

[LAL]

Way back in the early days of the "Bigfoot Follies" thread I posted about having seen a TV show about 30 years ago that investigated the Bigfoot rumors of the time. The P/G film was fairly new to TV and drawing lots of attention on "gee whiz" shows. The makers of the show I saw got a Bigfoot footprint hoaxer to show them how he faked tracks. Then they brought a Bigfoot "expert" to the site to examine the tracks. The "expert" proclaimed them authentic and un-fake able and then refused to talk to them any more after they showed him footage of the tracks being faked.

Unfortunately, this was at least 30 years ago and I don't remember the details of the title of the show or who the "expert" was, so in Lu's world, that means it never happened. I just remember watching it because (as a young teenager, I was intrigued by the mystery of Bigfoot. After seeing the show, I naively assumed that would be the end of the Bigfoot nonsense.

O, how young and foolish I was.

Of course, you didn't come up with the name, but how does it follow that in my "world" that means it never happened? I didn't even imply that. Who decided he was an "expert"? The show's producer? Was it someone with expertise in anthropology or just some self-styled amateur "bigfoot hunter" who didn't know he was going to be duped on TV?

I'm not doubting you saw what you saw, but without the person's name, it's pretty meaningless. If it were someone like Krantz, I should think we'd find a reference to this in one of the sceptical articles (by Dennett or Radford, e.g.) that tries to make him out as a gullible lunatic.

Do you at least remember what he looked like? How about the "bigfoot hoaxer"? Was there any mention of what trackways the hoaxer was supposed to have hoaxed?

 

[LAL]

Yeah, it's very frustrating to try to make any progress. Poor documentation everywhere. I am glad I said "if", or I would have been wrong.

Jimmy is still wrong though, imo. He has not seen any dermal ridges in bigfoot casts except transfers from humans, imo.

They're not the same. There were two individuals at Blue Creek Mountain leaving 13" and 15" tracks respectively. There's a photo of a footprint found on Onion Mountain on pg. 119 of Meet the Sasquatch in August 1967. The print measured 11-12", and you shot yourself in the foot right here:

"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."

Matt already noted which ones Chilcutt found compelling.

The dermal ridges are twice as wide as human ridges and the flow is unlike any known primate, humans included. Chilcutt had printed every primate that was known (a couple have been discovered since) before he contacted Meldrum about examining Meldrum's collection.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[LAL]

It's obvious to me that Green is talking about Ray Wallace's fake prints here. He had been looking at them all the time. 15" with a split in the ball. What more needs to be said?

He is even clearly measuring Alderfoot tracks in the photo.

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/bluff_creek_bigfoot.html

Typical indeed. A typical Alderfoot.

That site's really..........error riddled, BTW. Beware.

He's clearly measuring the distance between them. Toe to heel pace was about 36". On a 6' man it would be 20-22". There's a picture of Dahinden measuring from the left to the next right on pg. 191.

The split on Wallace's foot is in the heel, not the ball. I believe Green was referring to the "double ball" with the the "split". That's nothing to do with any thing on the heel.

The photo above is on pg. 11 of Meet the Sasquatch. Below it is a photo of a 15" right footprint with no line running up from the heel. There was an identical print found and cast 9 years before. On the opposite page is a photo of the 13" and 15" prints crossing. Again no line on either of the right footprints.


I've been accepted to Coleman's group. 'Scuse me while I read Matt's link.

How long were Wallace's fake feet?

 

[LAL]

I'll hold my breath for Meldrum's next paper, explaining how he was fooled, and how we can now tell the difference between real and fake prints.

He writing a book, and it's only your baseless assumption he was fooled on this.

I'm waiting for you to explain why, if Wallace was supposed to have faked the Crew tracks, the fake feet don't match those tracks.

I'm wondering why he didn't copy from that cast, a photo of which appeared in the newspaper, rather than from photos and/or casts from the 1967 Blue Creek Mountain incident.

You really can't see differences between the Dahinden 1967 photo and the crude wooden foot?

 

[LAL]

LTC8K6,

What is your source saying the print is from Bluff Creek.. My source says it is from Blue Creek Mountain .. ( in the same area )

From the Meldrum paper ... Source of print not identified, but very similar to your print ,LTC8K6.

It's a 1967 Dahinden photo from Blue Creek Mountain. The print was in deep dust dampened on the surface by a brief rain.

Here is a drawinfg based on the analysation of three other prints from Blue Creek Mountain .. ( Not far from the PGF site )

Just a coincidence, or does it just prove that the hoaxers copied ' real ' bigfoot prints...

Whoever carved Wallace's feet evidently copied something. Hoax the tracks? That a different matter.

The first pic looks a lot like this one .. I Believe this is same picture as yours also.

from Blue Creek Mt., as documented here..

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

Green writes: Do tell..

Green was at Blue Creek Mountain.

Obviously another close relative of Alderfoot...


Lu,

If Meldrum, Krantz & etc, can't spot the fake prints ( to which they have applied their expert anatomical analyzation ), why should we consider them credible at all ..

What makes you think they couldn't? Both examined tracks in situ (as did Green and Dahinden on several occasions in different areas), both had other experts examine their casts, both made fake feet to see what the characterisics of fake tracks would be, both examined original casts, not photos of them. They didn't get their PhDs by being stupid.

I cannot believe you two really believe those tracks were made by those crude wooden feet, or that Krantz, Meldrum, Green or Dahinden or anyone else could be fooled by them.

What is there to indicate Wallace was even in the area at the time?

P.S.

LTC8K6,

Do you know if there are any pics of prints that Chillcut examined on the web?

I'm scanning Hyampom prints now.

Re whorls:

"But he couldn't. "When I got on my knees and looked closely," he recalls, "I could see dermal ridge details"—the dips and whorls of fingerprints—"that would be awfully hard to fake." "

And:

"Fully hooked, Meldrum examined print casts that dated back to the late 1950s. Some he tossed as obvious hoaxes. Others contained impossible-to-fake signs of veracity. "When they discover tracks, most people cast only the clearest footprint," he says. "I looked for the messier prints, because they're the ones that tell me something about how the animal moved."

Then an even stranger thing happened. He started to recognize identical prints found years apart. "Here's the Bigfoot that Jerry Crew cast in 1958," he says, holding up a plaster cast familiar from the Humboldt Times photo. "Now here's a track found near Hyampom, California, about 60 miles south, in 1961. When you look at the shape, proportions, and relative positions of the toes, they're from the same guy. I say guy because it looks like a big male." "

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_7.html

Kantz acknowledges some of his casts could have been faked in his book, BTW.

Before you ask, keeping the fakes would be a way to easily distinquish new fakes in the same area. Hoaxers aren't known to repeat though.

The photo shows the Abbott Hill cast (Olympic Peninsula, 1982) on the right. Not sure what the other one is.

 

[RayG]

He's clearly measuring the distance between them. Toe to heel pace was about 36". On a 6' man it would be 20-22".

I don't think anyone's talking about the distance between the tracks, but instead the split that appears in the right part of the heel, on the print to Green's left.

The split on Wallace's foot is in the heel, not the ball.

No one is disputing that. The split on the Wallace faked foot seems remarkably similar to the heel split in the track Green is examining.

I believe Green was referring to the "double ball" with the the "split". That's nothing to do with any thing on the heel.

I'm not talking about any 'ball' split, I'm talking about what appears to be the same split in the heel. (see my attached image)

The photo above is on pg. 11 of Meet the Sasquatch.

And that print contains a split in the heel.

Below it is a photo of a 15" right footprint with no line running up from the heel.

I'm not talking about the second photo, only the one with Green examining the tracks.

RayG

Here's the side by side comparison of the fake footprint, and the one Green is examining. I hope everyone can clearly see the split in the heel of both tracks.

 

[LAL]

I don't think anyone's talking about the distance between the tracks, but instead the split that appears in the right part of the heel, on the print to Green's left.

Bill said Green was measuring the tracks. I'm a stickler for accuracy.

No one is disputing that. The split on the Wallace faked foot seems remarkably similar to the heel split in the track Green is examining.

And the line shows up nowhere else. It could have been put there by the yardstick while the print was being measured.

And we don't seem to have a picture of a print made by a Wallace fake for comparison.

I'm not talking about any 'ball' split, I'm talking about what appears to be the same split in the heel. (see my attached image)

I know what you're talking about. Bill referred to a split in the ball. He meant the indent on the "double ball", I assume.

And that print contains a split in the heel.

Or a mark made by something.

I'm not talking about the second photo, only the one with Green examining the tracks.

We should talk about the other photo (not the one posted). It's a closeup and doesn't show a split or line. Three right 15" prints can be seen on pg. 111 of Murphy's book. Only one has a line on the heel.

Here's the side by side comparison of the fake footprint, and the one Green is examining. I hope everyone can clearly see the split in the heel of both tracks.

Of course, but isn't the photo (pg. 111) of a track in the same trackway? Why doesn't it show the same line? What about the photo below that? It doesn't show a split or line either.

 

[tube]

Thanks Ray.

 

[LAL]

Chilcutt found a Hyampom cast compelling:

 

[LAL]

This is the page I mean.

 

[LAL]

This is the middle photo. No line. Note the toes.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wait...

Those are taken as being compelling evidence?

Even with that weird straight line running underneath the fingers?

I´m a bit used to see footprints of several types of animals, and those look compelling faked.

 

[LAL]

Sandals? Rubber feet? These are two answers, even if you don't like them. To claim there is no way to fake these tracks is patently dishonest.

Cut up wading boots. What about the stride? I'm not going to copy Krantz' book word for word for people who are too lazy to read it. All these things are addressed and more.

Please stop repeating "Read Krantz". Please. Stop now. We're not engaged in a debate with Krantz.

Do not tell me what to do. Did you read the comments on the sweat pores? These are not things that can be easily duplicated. I back up my opinions. Krantz is one of my sources. Read Krantz.

If Krantz has a point that you'd like to quote, do so...

I've been doing that, with my laborious one-finger typing and dial-up connection. Do your own homework. Maybe I'll just add "Read Krantz" to my sig line.

but simply regurgitating that phrase does nothing to support your argument. Nothing.

If you want to debate...debate.

Been doing that.......for how long on just this board? It's not easy keeping up with three threads, often against half-a-dozen posters at a time, three other boards and my life. Note how late I'm up some nights. I've probably done more reading on this just in the last hour than you've done in your entire life.

Is this the dermal ridge argument? Did you just sleepwalk through the rest of the thread? They may be dermal ridges, they may be faked dermal ridges or they may be casting artifacts.

I've read every post and refrained from making retalitatory rude comments, although that may change without notice. Did any of you note the decorum on BFF, in the Walas thread, e.g.? There's an occasional hothead, but for the most part, people there behave like adults.

The Onion Mountain cast may be affected but that's the only one so far. Chilcutt specifically mentions an artifact apparently made by the caster on the Elkins Creek cast. He also noted fingerprint contamination in the toe area on the first cast of Meldrum's he examined. Evidently the caster tried to touch up the shape before casting. The guy's good.

I know of no case where anyone tried to fake dermals except the Indiana cast, which may have had Dahinden's expertise involved.

Doesn't amount to much evidence, really.

What there is is compelling. Only one track needs to be real to prove the animal exists.

You also fail to address the problems with the "thousands" of tracks out there. Not all do contain these "anatomical details"...for instance, most tracks don't have dermal ridges. Those that do, run in the wrong direction. How can purported dermal ridges that run in the wrong direction be considered accurate “anatomical details” for a heavy creature in mountainous environment?

Source that. Where do dermal ridges ever run in the "wrong" direction?

Only certain substrates preserve dermal ridge detail. Too coarse, no ridges. Too wet, no ridges. Insensitive medium, no ridges. Ridges weren't even discovered until 1982, but there were plenty of casts before then.

I spent pages on this on one of the other threads as Diogenes can attest. Don't accuse me of failure when you haven't read the whole discussion.

 

[LAL]

"Up to now I have left the subject of dermal ridges to those with expertise in that field, and I would suggest doing the same in this case. I am sure that Jimmy Chilcutt can tell the difference between dermals with sweat pores scars etc. and casting artifacts.

As to the cast which has been referred to that I made on Onion Mountain, with lines looping around on the heel, I have never understood how those lines formed but they have always looked
like casting artifacts to me.

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs"