Dermal Ridges Or Casting Artifact?

[Guest]

Could John be confusing the larger "folds and wrinkles" of a digit such as the joint creases, "lines" of a hand, etc with the fine-detail friction ridges? I don't think the latter get bigger or smaller by digit size, but the former certainly would.

[Guest]

What I am saying is,as a last attempt to explain it, the dermal pattern of a human for instance is set at about 24 months or, something I believe. If the foot of a say three year old child has already established the pattern, then as the foot grows, the pattern grows with it, so the ridges become larger, and more spaced, according to the size of the foot. When leaving an impression in something, especially some sort of substrate, that you would expect a more clear impression from the larger foot,it would allow for more compression, and for more material to form between the ridges and show more detail. Otherwise an adult would have to have more dermal ridges than a child,so how could the pattern be set at 24 months? So if a smaller whatever, left an impression in coarse clay, it would be less apt to having the "spacing" required for a clear impression. Or do dermal ridges not grow with the body like everything else does?

[Guest Cervelo]

If this is what a humans foot looks like that doesn't wear shoes, wouldn't biggies look similar and if so why aren't all these imperfections picked up in the cast but dermal ridges are?

That's always been my criteria for faked tracks if it's smooth it's fake!

[Guest Transformer]

What I am saying is,as a last attempt to explain it, the dermal pattern of a human for instance is set at about 24 months or, something I believe. If the foot of a say three year old child has already established the pattern, then as the foot grows, the pattern grows with it, so the ridges become larger, and more spaced, according to the size of the foot. When leaving an impression in something, especially some sort of substrate, that you would expect a more clear impression from the larger foot,it would allow for more compression, and for more material to form between the ridges and show more detail. Otherwise an adult would have to have more dermal ridges than a child,so how could the pattern be set at 24 months? So if a smaller whatever, left an impression in coarse clay, it would be less apt to having the "spacing" required for a clear impression. Or do dermal ridges not grow with the body like everything else does?

The friction ridges on a human are developed in the womb. Like I stated in my earlier post the patterns do not change as growth occurs. Only the distance between the ridges gets larger. The ridges do not grow larger or "taller" as you have repeatedly tried to state nor are they larger or taller on a larger person as opposed to a smaller person because they are made up of extruded cells that have a lifespan of approximately 30 days. Thus, the difference between large humans and small humans friction ridge height is practically non-existent because the size of the cells are consistent between large people and small people and the number of cells in the friction ridge is dependent on how long the cells survive before they slough off and that is consistent at about 30 days for all sizes of people. As far as which would leave better patent prints that would be dependent on so many factors it boggles the mind.

[Guest]

Its the distance between the ridges getting larger, that would indeed make for a more detailed print. It would allow for coarser material, and more material to get between the ridges, thus more detail.Of course its all going to be variable according to substrate, etc. Your own statement, that the space between the ridges gets larger is exactly what I am talking about. Maybe I am just not explaining it simply enough.

[Guest Transformer]

You started off with this in which you said the ridges were bigger.

There is some spacing relative to size to consider, you might want to find a really big hand, the bigger the hand, the bigger the ridges, the more likely to show. Its like the feet, bigger, heavier, better impression, better chance than a normal sized human print leaving as much detail.

I answered with this:

^ The size of the patterns of the friction ridges may get larger but there is no evidence that the friction ridges are higher or the furrows are deeper in people with larger hands or feet. Therefore there is no difference in the depth of the friction patterns when placed into a substrate.

You were clearly talking about the frictrion ridges being larger (higher therefore leaving deeper patent prints) almost a week ago but have now seemed to have changed your tune. I think that is called moving the goalposts but whatever you want to argue, there is no evidence that bigger people make better patent prints. There are just too many variables to make any predictions. Since I am just repeating my arguments in my posts I will just have to agree to disagree and move on.

[Guest JVDBogart]

Does anyone else own a copy of the Blue Creek Mountain Road, Washington 1967 footprint cast? I bought it a long time ago on eBay and it came with an informative posterboard about the cast. It claims to be one of the best examples of dermal ridges appearing on a cast. I must admit, the cast does contain what appear to be dermal ridges near the heel, outside of the foot, and near the big toe.

To anyone else that owns a copy, what do you think? Dermal ridges? Casting artifact? or no one else beside me was stupid enough to buy one?

[Guest]

Bigger, wider,deeper,it does not matter, they grow with the foot or hand, therefore allow for a coarser impression and in whatever substrate is being stepped in at the time, you can dress it up..and play the game all you want transformer, it does not alter the reality of the simple concept. I am seriously done with this now, I am not interested in your silly internet semantics, I was simply trying to point out something obvious,that really, no one should point out,because its that obvious. But this is the internet, sometimes I forget that, thanks for reminding me.

[Guest]

Maybe a few dermal ridges are actually casting artifacts, but most are so apperant that they would have to be fingerprints of some sort.

[Guest]

If this is what a humans foot looks like that doesn't wear shoes, wouldn't biggies look similar and if so why aren't all these imperfections picked up in the cast but dermal ridges are?

That's always been my criteria for faked tracks if it's smooth it's fake!

Good point. And one would think that a serious crease would be evident at the mid-tarsal break. But, alas, Bigfoot experts have an explanation. The bottom of the Bigfoot foot is heavily padded, and in this respect it is not human-like or ape-like, but .....bear-like. Another Bigfoot incongruity. And one wonders why padded feet would even have dermal ridges.

[Guest]

I wouldn't expect there to be any creases at the MTB. Creases form from contractions, like the palm of your hand vs the back of it, while a MTB stretches and relaxes the skin at the midtarsus. IMO, only special conditions would allow a cast to pick up creases & dermals anyway, such as shallow mud or gumbo. And then the only way to make sure they aren't artifacts is to photograph the prints in situ before casting. Otherwise, there must be a classification system to distinguish them from casting artifacts.

I'll bet dermals can readily be distinguished from casting artifacts. A cross sectional macroscopic examination of dermals vs casting artifacts should be able to classify them. They are created by entirely different processes and likely easily distinguishable. Casting artifacts are the result of desiccation of the casting material which creates air filled valleys between ridges that sit on top of the substrate. Real dermals work the opposite, dermals compress the substrate and the substrate material fills in the valleys. They are completely opposite processes which should have obvious differences. In particular, real dermals probably have a much smaller valley width to ridge width ratio. The peaks on dermals are also more flat than rounded. Why this aspect hasn’t been pursued by all involved since casting artifacts were 1st discovered is beyond me. Establishing a classification system for dermals should be as reliable as identifying fingerprints. But no one seems interested. Probably because the discovery of casting artifacts knocked the wind out of bigfoot dermals and now no one wants to touch it.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest Cervelo]

My point is a very simple one.

I would expect to see signs of wear and tear of a lifetime of walking on bare feet as well as the fine details of dermal ridges.

On the surface (pardon the pun) it's just doesn't make sense.

[Guest]

But I wouldn't expect to see any of those details on a cast unless the substrate conditions were perfect. And even then, these features must be repeated within a trackway and they must be documented in situ. And now that the cat's out of the bag, incorporating these features into bigfoot prints are in the mindset of your modern sophisticated hoaxer. The bar is way high now, and scars, creases and dermals would have to be very compelling to pass muster. New age hoaxers are probably all over this like stink on a bigfoot.

[Guest Cervelo]

G,

So if we have the dermal ridges but no other indication of a life lived outdoors shoeless, that raises no red flags for you.

I'm sure you know way more about this than me, but it would seem if the substrate would yield dermal ridges it would as well reveal indications of a life lived outdoors and barefoot.

[Guest]

Cervello, the pics of those feet are of a human not a sasquatch. Sasquatch have a VERY thick pad. The human foot would have wrinkles cuz we don't develop AS THICK of a pad as sasquatch. Plus the weight that bears down on a sasquatch foot is 2 and 1/2 times that of a human as percentages go... roughly. Thats why they are not only longer but wider. It's like comparing oranges and apples.