masterbarber Posted January 2, 2011 Admin Share Posted January 2, 2011 Question. What is the purpose of casting prints? What scientific application can be used in the study of alleged Bigfoot casts that will help progress the "research" of this phenomenon? Without a specimen foot to compare these prints to, the only use I have seen for them are "trophies" for investigators. Even the work of Dr. Meldrum is full of guess work and theory. Good point, although I did enjoy the thread on Dermatoglyphics & Casting Artifacts which clearly shows that "squatch dermals" are manufactured by the casting process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 JC Correlations. Comparisons. Interpretations. IF one questions possible presence at say a private location. From time to time tracks occur. Often just partial tracks.. in other words they walk in the front portion of their foot, possibly even the side. Over time, the dimensions of those possible real prints, possible hoaxed prints, suggest different individuals. How many? Do the prints show up at different times of the year? How familiar are you with the different sized ones? Do they represent different individuals ? Does one or more have what appears to be a foot deformity? How deep are they inscribed in different substrate ? 5 miles away can you find any of these particular tracks you have a cast of ? That looks very similar with size and dimension of one that you have found and examined? Are there comparative features of the track casts you might have in hand and the new ones? Could it be reasonable you found those tracks in a wild location that would be difficult for a random hoaxer to strike or place ? Just a few of my responses that come to mind. If you think about it, there are LOTS of reasons to nail down track copies (casts) and many people have the expertise to look at the details.. and when they start to match across the country showing certain characters.. hey, to me at least, it sure gets interesting. And what UPs said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I am suggesting that if a skeptic really wants to see why someone might be inclined to belief, they carefully read through that chapter on footprints After decades of BS regarding the PG film, I don't know if I want to endure their garbage on the PG film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Good point, although I did enjoy the thread on Dermatoglyphics & Casting Artifacts which clearly shows that "squatch dermals" are manufactured by the casting process. Can be, but not all "squatch dermals" have been explained by the casting process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 We know how many have been explained by actual feet. None. So are we really any further ahead? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ShadowPrime Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ray - You have expressed similar sentiments before, and, respectfully, I just don't follow. The underlying premise seems to be that unless and until we have a BF body (and therefore, the feet of a BF!), we can't KNOW the characteristics of a BF foot, so we can't evaluate whether any footprints were actually MADE by a "real" BF foot, etc. I guess, following that logic, there is no point to photographs (until we have a real BF to work with, who knows if the subject of a photograph is a real BF), hair samples (until we have a real BF to work with, what do we match the hair against), scat (until we have some real BF poop in hand (BLECH), how can we...er...etc), and so on. To me, it is a given that the issue of BF's reality isn't settled. No kidding, right? So unless and until it IS settled, those with an interest in BF are going to evaluate what is available, see what can be learned, and figure out if we think the evidence that IS available points more towards "BF is real" or more towards "BF is not real". All that being said, not sure what your point is, where you are going with it. Okay, we don't have the feet of a real BF against which we can compare tracks. Point granted. Are you suggesting that it is therefore useless to study tracks - for example, to perhaps see if they demonstrate characteristics that are highly suggestive of having been left by an animal versus a stamper? Wouldn't that apply to ANY "BF evidence"? Are you saying that the one and only aspect of Bigfootery worth anyone's time or breath is bringing in a body, and until then everyone should just sit back? Shadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted January 3, 2011 Admin Share Posted January 3, 2011 Can be, but not all "squatch dermals" have been explained by the casting process. Are you saying that some may be a result of direct human manipulation? Tube claims that after he did his presentation, Meldrum stated it was a "slam dunk". Has Jimmy Chilcutt refuted Tube's findings? Have we compared these "squatch dermals" to a squatch foot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Masterbarber said: Are you saying that some may be a result of direct human manipulation? No. Where did I even hint at that? I am telling you, not all "dermal ridges" found in tracks can be explained by human manipulation or the casting process itself. That was not the comment I responded to from you. You said: clearly shows that "squatch dermals" are manufactured by the casting process. That is simply not true. Even Dr. Meldrum believes some of the casts may contain actual dermal ridges, and not artifacts. I am always humored by what some will grab onto and run with. Lets tell the whole story. I will say this, I think if someone wanted to manipulate a cast, they could. Which is why I am interested in figuring out a way to tell when and if manipulation has taken place. No one has explained the dermal ridge evidence in the Hereford (sp?) cast, which was a track created in mud. No track, which was found in mud and contains alleged dermal ridge evidence, has been explained by the work done by myself, Tube or Bittermonk, if these casts have been explained by Tube or Bittermonk, I am unaware of their findings and I am pretty sure someone would have told me something (those things have a way of making the rounds). If they did, and I have not heard about it, I would love to read about it. I know I haven't, and if I do I will be more than happy to let everyone know. I have casted human footprints in a muddy substrate, and had no evidence of artifacts, but I was able to capture very nice human dermal ridges. Edited January 3, 2011 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ray - You have expressed similar sentiments before, and, respectfully, I just don't follow. Just being Captain Obvious Asshat to Melissa's comment that not all dermals have been explained away by the casting process. The unspoken implication being that if all the dermals haven't been explained away by the casting process, then those that haven't may be real bigfoot dermals. This is but one step removed from the old 'if you haven't explained away all the footprints as hoaxes, then they may be real bigfoot tracks' thought process. I'm considerably more skeptical than that. The underlying premise seems to be that unless and until we have a BF body (and therefore, the feet of a BF!), we can't KNOW the characteristics of a BF foot, so we can't evaluate whether any footprints were actually MADE by a "real" BF foot, etc. I guess, following that logic, there is no point to photographs (until we have a real BF to work with, who knows if the subject of a photograph is a real BF), hair samples (until we have a real BF to work with, what do we match the hair against), scat (until we have some real BF poop in hand (BLECH), how can we...er...etc), and so on. You have your standards, I have mine. Years ago I presented convincing evidence to three of my young sons of the presence of 'snap-dragons' in a field near our house. No such critters existed in that field, nor anywhere else in the vicinity, but my sons certainly stepped lively when they crossed that field the next few times. I showed them trails in the grass, 'spit' evidence, a scar on my knee, gave them a totally fictional anecdotal account of my brother being attacked and losing a chunk of his leg to one, and even found pictures of snap-dragons online. Not one bit of it ever matched up to an actual snap-dragon in that field though. When people endorse the same old bigfoot evidence that has been around for years, they may as well endorse my snap-dragon evidence. To me, it is a given that the issue of BF's reality isn't settled. No kidding, right? So unless and until it IS settled, those with an interest in BF are going to evaluate what is available, see what can be learned, and figure out if we think the evidence that IS available points more towards "BF is real" or more towards "BF is not real". In this case some of the evidence being evaluated is a quarter of a century old. Where are the recent casts/footprints with dermals? And just how is it that with so much trace evidence, and such advances in technology, bigfoot is as elusive as ever? That's partly why I've become increasingly skeptical. All that being said, not sure what your point is, where you are going with it. That presenting scraps of supposed evidence doesn't bring us any closer to confirming bigfoot exists. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted January 3, 2011 Admin Share Posted January 3, 2011 No. Where did I even hint at that? I am telling you, not all "dermal ridges" found in tracks can be explained by human manipulation or the casting process itself. That was not the comment I responded to from you. Maybe you missed the question mark at the end. Let's try it this way, If not all are casting artifacts what do you think causes them? Even Dr. Meldrum believes some of the casts may contain actual dermal ridges, and not artifacts. I am always humored by what some will grab onto and run with. Lets tell the whole story. I will say this, I think if someone wanted to manipulate a cast, they could. Which is why I am interested in figuring out a way to tell when and if manipulation has taken place. And I'm certain he's not the only one but on the other hand we have folks who have proven that these artifacts do occur during the casting process and those artifacts somehow miraculously bear a striking resemblance (and location) to what is referred to as "squatch Dermals". No one has explained the dermal ridge evidence in the Hereford (sp?) cast, which was a track created in mud. No track, which was found in mud and contains alleged dermal ridge evidence, has been explained by the work done by myself, Tube or Bittermonk, if these casts have been explained by Tube or Bittermonk, I am unaware of their findings and I am pretty sure someone would have told me something (those things have a way of making the rounds). If they did, and I have not heard about it, I would love to read about it. I know I haven't, and if I do I will be more than happy to let everyone know. I have casted human footprints in a muddy substrate, and had no evidence of artifacts, but I was able to capture very nice human dermal ridges. Wasn't the initial experiment simply to see if casting artifacts could be an explanation to what was occuring? Did the dermals in that track match any other alleged "squatch dermals" in other casts? Is this the only alleged BF track of it's kind that displays these dermals in mud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Maybe you missed the question mark at the end. Let's try it this way, If not all are casting artifacts what do you think causes them? Well, if its not errors in the casting process, I wouldnt know what would cause them - unless they are legitimate artifacts. And I'm certain he's not the only one but on the other hand we have folks who have proven that these artifacts do occur during the casting process and those artifacts somehow miraculously bear a striking resemblance (and location) to what is referred to as "squatch Dermals". Yes, as I have also. But, only while casting in Pumice. Do you think you will be casting in pumice anytime soon? But, some of these alleged dermals have not been explained by errors in the casting process. What would you call them? A fluke? If its not the casting process, what is causing them? Wasn't the initial experiment simply to see if casting artifacts could be an explanation to what was occuring? Okay, whos work are you talking about? If you are talking about Matt's, yes. But, there are many questions that still remain to this day. So, the mystery is not yet solved in its totality. Did the dermals in that track match any other alleged "squatch dermals" in other casts? This cast had other similar items, but if memory serves me, this cast also perserved other items which I find interesting - like skin surface details (for lack of a better word). I am not sure what other casts this is shown on. Is this the only alleged BF track of it's kind that displays these dermals in mud? No. Elkins Creek also had the same alleged dermals preserved. There could be more, but these are the two I am aware of specifically. How similar the alleged dermal ridge evidence is, I have no idea, I am not educated in the examination process and comparison of one alleged dermal to another. This is a science that goes far beyond my education and that of most. I can tell you, one was casted in Georgia (I believe) and the other was casted in Washington State (I believe). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) RayG said: Just being Captain Obvious Asshat to Melissa's comment that not all dermals have been explained away by the casting process. The unspoken implication being that if all the dermals haven't been explained away by the casting process, then those that haven't may be real bigfoot dermals. RayG, that was not what I said. I don't "imply" anything. If that is how I felt, I would say it - flat out, no question. There may be answers to this that are (as of yet) undiscovered. I am looking for whatever that answer is, regardless of the answer. One of those answers may in fact be a bigfoot, NOTE I said "may". If it is bigfoot, can you tell me why I should consider this animal would not have dermal ridges like any other primate in the world? Should we be looking for tracks devoid of any detail? Edited January 3, 2011 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted January 3, 2011 Admin Share Posted January 3, 2011 Do you think you will be casting in pumice anytime soon? But, some of these alleged dermals have not been explained by errors in the casting process. What would you call them? A fluke? If its not the casting process, what is causing them? I can safely say that No, I will not be casting in pumice or anything else. I don't feel footprints are the key to the BF mystery, they may be indicators but of course we can't currently verify that (JMO). I would look for recurring issues and try to establish if there is a way to repeat them and if so then I have proven a potential or likely cause. What I would not do is pick an unverified source and insert it as a possible explanation. (not saying you have because I don't know). Okay, whos work are you talking about? If you are talking about Matt's, yes. But, there are many questions that still remain to this day. So, the mystery is not yet solved in its totality. Yes, Matt and subsequently repeated by BM and WT. I wasn't aware that you had conducted any testing prior to reading the casting artifacts thread. What do you feel are some of the unknown/unresolved issues to date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I can safely say that No, I will not be casting in pumice or anything else. I don't feel footprints are the key to the BF mystery, they may be indicators but of course we can't currently verify that (JMO). I would look for recurring issues and try to establish if there is a way to repeat them and if so then I have proven a potential or likely cause. What I would not do is pick an unverified source and insert it as a possible explanation. (not saying you have because I don't know). You and I agree. Believe it or not. I think Footprints (tracks) are an indicator that activity of somekind may be present in an area - when contacted by a witness. What caused the footprints (at this point) is open to intrepretation, as we can't even say bigfoot really exists. I will say this, I have seen the alleged dermals on both the hereford and the Elkins creek.. They look like I would expect dermal ridge patterns to look, which is curious to me. But, as I said, I am not an expert. I am simply unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and if this is an issue we are causing ourselves through shoddy work, then we need to be able to 1. spot it and 2. stop it. That is my hope. What I would not do is pick an unverified source and insert it as a possible explanation. Again, we agree. But, we also do ourselves no favors when we completely disregard this as an option. I do not point to these casts and say, "Obviously a bigfoot made these impressions." I do however not rule out any possibility, to include someone who is better at faking something as intricate as dermals. Hey, stranger things have happened. Yes, Matt and subsequently repeated by BM and WT. I wasn't aware that you had conducted any testing prior to reading the casting artifacts thread. What do you feel are some of the unknown/unresolved issues to date? Air being mixed into the casting material is a big issue, and what ultimately lead to my first set of artifacts. This is something that can be avoided however. I (along with Bittermonk and Tube) have not created artifacts in muddy impressions. That is still an unknown how that happens. I have tried, and failed, along with others. We also dont know how to spot a cast where there may be an issue of improper casting methods. I have noticed however a similar theme to how my casts look, when artifacts will be present - this is something I was working on, when I stopped (and actually predicted to others watching, and it happened). There is also an issue of what I call "folding" on the sides of some casts, that in my opinion looks like skin folding under body weight, and this is something that has also gone unanswered. Much to my dismay, I and others have failed to re-create this kind of detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 The unspoken implication being that if all the dermals haven't been explained away by the casting process, then those that haven't may be real bigfoot dermals. RayG, that was not what I said. I don't "imply" anything. If that is how I felt, I would say it - flat out, no question. That seems to be what you flat out said here in this very thread: That is simply not true. Even Dr. Meldrum believes some of the casts may contain actual dermal ridges, and not artifacts. How then does 'may be real bigfoot dermals' and 'may contain actual dermal ridges' differ in any significant manner? Because you left out the word bigfoot? I certainly concluded you meant bigfoot. What do you mean then by "actual dermal ridges" if you aren't implying they came from bigfoot? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts