Guest Transformer Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 This is the best site to review "Tube's" experiments and conclusions regarding dermal ridges and other claimed track issues. http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/21/bigfoot-compendium/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 ^ Except it's biased towards Tube of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I just took a quick look, as I am on my way out right now, but it seems to me, Tube is dealing only with casts, when what is posted is pictures showing ridges before, or on tracks not cast. I don't see his relevancy here, and I know nothing of his back ground, or expertise, but will certainly have a closer look this evening. It will be interesting to see how his knowledge, expertise, and education compares to a few others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Thanks HR and BFS, that is exactly the help I was hoping for! I thought it was 100 posts to get to the PMP? I am glad I am wrong and I will sign up promptly. Thanks again! Jon Glad it helped friend. We'll certainly look forward to having you join the PMP discussions shortly and once you do I will point you to more info regarding your particular area of interest that is included in the content for PMP members. The SC recently voted to reduce the post requirement from 100 to 75 for those wishing to join the Premium Membership Plan in consideration of researchers who might not post as much as others but need the encyclopedic material included in the plan for their continued research. It is really cool and we are presently updating a *library* of BF material. The library includes the following categories.... General Information Tirademan's Historical Archives The John Green Wing The Rene Dahinden Wing The Grover Krantz Wing The Peter Byrne Wing The Media Center The Library is in its infancy stages, and some of the above areas have no info uploaded yet but there will be some shortly and what is posted is really cool thus far. But you are good to go so far as joining as a Premium Member since you have a clean warning history and the needed post count. You just have to affirm you are 18 years old or older and have a PayPal account. If you need help on joining please hit me up via PM and I'll walk you through the process. I'm told by fairly good authority, , that there will soon be a Premium Member Munn's Report Section in which Bill will share more info regarding his research on the PGF for Premium Members than will be visible on the General Forum. The way we are setting it up dictates Premium Member's will enjoy an somewhat *active* participation in his research efforts of the PGF. Gonna be really cool for PMP members. I'd certainly encourage anyone interested in the subject of this forum, who is at least 18 years of age, has a warning status of +2 or less, and the required 75 post count minimum to join the PMP if you have yet to do so as we have some great and unprecedented things planned on the horizon for our PMP members. Costs $20.00 for a 1 year membership and there is a lot of *bang* for the proverbial *buck*. Thank you for the link, HRP. Looks like Bittermonk et al did some very informative experiments. No worries buddy. Bittermonk is one of the coolest guys you could ever hope to meet and is VERY knowledgeable regarding casting artifacts. He's just a great guy who has devoted tons of his personal time to the research of this subject over the years. A bit of a *skeptical proponent* but that isn't a bad thing. He just requires some measure of validation before he believes the extraordinary accounts. I think we would all do well and benefit the subject if we held similar standards. You should see his base form for Witness Reports. It is VERY detailed and a stalwart model to use if one seeks the truth. But he is pretty well established regarding casting artifacts as well. One of the smarter folks within the community I've ever run into. And, he has been around for some time and is well respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Jon- Here is the link to the whole set of articles:http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/21/bigfoot-compendium/ Here is the link to an article about arched furrows: http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/arched-furrows/ and one about Ridges and Furrows. http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ridges-and-furrows-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 ^ Except it's biased towards Tube of course. Biased towards truth maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Thank you, HRP, for not mentioning the PMP "Incorrigible1 latrine/RV sanitary dump station." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 I find this subject very informative and also agree with Drew that Tube's work appears very thorough and well organized and his conclusions well thought out. Now what I want to know about are the tracks that I've seen that have ridges going across the track, behind the ball of the foot, that appear to be indications of a flexible arch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Biased towards truth maybe. No, towards his opinion, and his assertion that an experienced forensic print examiner like Dr Chilcutt doesn't know what he's talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I have seen many forensic reports regarding fingerprints, thumb prints, palm prints, heel prints, and toe prints of humans. Even leather gloves can be matched! I know it takes a lot of precision work and detailed information to prove matches and the "Ident" people (in the US you refer to them as Crime Scene Investigators or CSI or Forensic Examiners) are really sticklers for details. Given that, I would imagine that Mr. Chilcutt's work would be almost impossible to to contradict and would blow Tube's work out of the water. Where can I find his report? Does anybody have a link? Did Tube have a copy of his report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I just linked to some excellent dermal documentation (including dermals in the actual tracks photographed before casting) in the other dermal thread (which I suspect will get merged with this one soon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Thank you! I'm off to read it. Mulder, I looked at the links you posted in the other thread. (copied below) I do not see anything that looks like a forensic analysis of dermal ridges. I just see untrained and uncredited people's opinions on what they think they saw and some photos. The one of the hand is labelled but I have no idea if the labeling is correct and it sure has not been verified by any expert. http://voices.yahoo....=2362140&cat=58 http://sasquatchinve.../bigfoot-print/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 No, towards his opinion, and his assertion that an experienced forensic print examiner like Dr Chilcutt doesn't know what he's talking about. I think Chilcutt himself (didn't realize he was a Dr by the way) would agree that the casting artifacts research was notable. Seems to me he kind of took a step back from the topic once Tube's research on casting artifacts came out. I've seen him review latent print marks on windows and such since that time, but it seems to me he has not focused on the horizontal ridge patterns / casting artifacts since Tube's research hit. Am I mistaken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Biased towards truth maybe. No. Biased towards Tube. As I already said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Thank you! I'm off to read it. Mulder, I looked at the links you posted in the other thread. (copied below) I do not see anything that looks like a forensic analysis of dermal ridges. I just see untrained and uncredited people's opinions on what they think they saw and some photos. The one of the hand is labelled but I have no idea if the labeling is correct and it sure has not been verified by any expert. http://voices.yahoo....=2362140&cat=58 http://sasquatchinve.../bigfoot-print/ The main point was to show dermals IN TRACKS, not in casts. The first link has such a demonstration (image #3) http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A2362/2362136/470_2362136.jpg and again here http://sasquatchinvestigations.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/sasquatch-footprint-cu.jpg Dermals IN TRACKS cannot be the result of casting artifacts as the cast has not even been made yet. I think Chilcutt himself (didn't realize he was a Dr by the way) would agree that the casting artifacts research was notable. Seems to me he kind of took a step back from the topic once Tube's research on casting artifacts came out. I've seen him review latent print marks on windows and such since that time, but it seems to me he has not focused on the horizontal ridge patterns / casting artifacts since Tube's research hit. Am I mistaken? The Dr title was a mistype by me...he's a forensic fingerprint technician by trade and I've been unable to find any CV that states he has a doctorate. His appelation at most might be "Officer" Chilcutt. I know he still works with dermals, and has been mentioned elsewhere in this forum still maintains that certain casts of tracks show legitimate dermatoglyphics. No. Biased towards Tube. As I already said. Let's assume that Tube's research is entirely valid, what does that give us? That casting artifacts CAN occur, but not that they always DO occur, nor that they are the same as dermatoglyphics that a trained forensic examiner (such as Chilcutt) can tell the difference between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts