Dermal Ridges & Jimmie Chilcutt: My Favorite Evidence

[Guest]

I know a lot of people say that dermal ridges nowadays could be faked very easily if you had the right materials and the right knowledge of primet prints and knew what to do. However, what about the two casts that Jimmie Chilcutt examined that had the exact same dermal ridge pattern?

Two different casts. One taken in California and the other in Washington and were taken 20-30 years apart. What's the likelihood that this is the same hoaxer using the same dermal ridge pattern on the foot?

Some of my favorite evidence, as this would be EXTREMELY hard to fake, IMHO.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Austin M.

[Drew]

Which two casts are those? Exact same dermal pattern? really?

[Cotter]

Austin, do you have a link?

[Guest thermalman]

Yes it would Austin, although not 100% impossible.

[Guest]

To everyone, they're on all of the documentaries that Jimmie Chilcutt has been in.

Here's a link on Bigfoot encounters: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/chilcutt.htm

Edited July 20, 2012 by Austin M.

[Drew]

That link doesn't say any two casts have matching dermals.

[Guest]

I know a lot of people say that dermal ridges nowadays could be faked very easily if you had the right materials and the right knowledge of primet prints and knew what to do. However, what about the two casts that Jimmie Chilcutt examined that had the exact same dermal ridge pattern?

Two different casts. One taken in California and the other in Washington and were taken 20-30 years apart. What's the likelihood that this is the same hoaxer using the same dermal ridge pattern on the foot?

Some of my favorite evidence, as this would be EXTREMELY hard to fake, IMHO.

Absolutely. This sort of highly technical detail makes hoaxing or other explanations (such as alleged "casting artifacts") virtually impossible as an explanation

Any legitimate scientist should be highly impressed by this sort of data.

ETA: I've heard about him identifying a specific individual as well, but it isn't mentioned in that article, austin. Could you have your links mixed up?

ETA Again:

Excellent documentation of dermals in the original impressions:

http://voices.yahoo.com/baby-bigfoot-evidence-cast-prints-sasquatch-11342564.html?image=2362140&cat=58

http://sasquatchinvestigations.org/bigfoot-research/bigfoot-print/

Edited July 20, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Absolutely. This sort of highly technical detail makes hoaxing or other explanations (such as alleged "casting artifacts") virtually impossible as an explanation

Any legitimate scientist should be highly impressed by this sort of data.

ETA: I've heard about him identifying a specific individual as well, but it isn't mentioned in that article, austin. Could you have your links mixed up?

ETA Again:

Excellent documentation of dermals in the original impressions:

http://voices.yahoo....=2362140&cat=58

http://sasquatchinve.../bigfoot-print/

Sorry everyone, they're not directly in the article, but in most of the documentaries, like "On The Trail of Bigfoot" and "Ancient Mysteries" and I also think "Legend Meets Science" is another one that he shows up in.

[Guest]

That's interesting, maybe all hoaxers have a hoaxing forum? Anyone know of one?

[Guest LAL]

Jimmy explains here:

[Guest Darrell]

Chilcutt states he has casts taken 20 yrs and over 400 miles apart that display the same characteristics. However he doesnt state they match. Might be more evidence that the dermal ridges are a result of the casting process.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Darrell

[Guest LAL]

Wasn't one from Elkins Creek, Georgia? It was cast in mud. How do you get "dessication ridges" in mud?

[Guest]

He is refering to dermal ridges that are correct. Not necessarily the same individual.

[Guest LAL]

Right. They had the same ridge flow and the same ridge texture. Casts from California, Georgia and Washington were "matches".

[Guest]

I’m posting all this from memory so don’t hold me to the dates and exactness of some of the specifics in terms of the timeline.

I believe Meldrum had 5 “foot print†casts in his collection that he believed exhibited ridge detail (i.e. dermal ridges, dematoglyphics) prior to 2000. Which is I think when Chilcutt initially went to ID to examine his cast collection. These 5 casts consisted of the 3 Freeman Tracks “discovered†in June 1982, an additional Freeman cast (the proverbial “fingerprint†cast) from a later date around 1983ish, and what has become known as CA-19 (a J. Green cast from Bluff Creek, CA, circa 1960’s).

Chilcutt immediately declared the “fingerprint†cast as a probable hoax, as the indentifiers (whorl patterns, etc) of the same human fingerprint appeared in numerous places on the surface of the cast in a manner that was consistent with compression of the substrate by hand, and could not be thought of as an incidental print within the cast at the time of casting. Meldrum requested Chilcutt document these observations in an email to Meldrum, which Meldrum forwarded to several academic proponents of bigfoot. Meldrum to my knowledge no longer endorses this cast as being real.

After Matt Crowley’s quite extensive experimentation that examined whether the alleged “ridge detail†could potentially be artifacts of the casting process, Meldrum initially described Crowley’s efforts as a “slam dunk†(or words to that effect) for providing an explanation for the ridges in CA-19. Meldrum discusses this in some detail in his book, LMS, and clearly no longer concludes that it is ridge detail of bigfoot, but is more likely casting artifacts via desiccation in the casting process that we see in CA-19. I do not know if Chilcutt agrees with Meldrum’s conclusion regarding CA-19.

So we’re left with the 3 Freeman casts from 1982 that the big name proponents are in agreement show evidence of bigfoot. Meldrum concludes that the ridge detail in these casts could not possibly have been created via desiccation because the apparent “ridge structure†contained within the casts were also observed prior to the casting of the impressions. And were also observed in impressions that were not cast from the same site days later by other individuals (and some of the same USFS staff that initially cast the impressions.)

I think the evidence that the 3 Freeman casts from June 1982 were hoaxed is pretty overwhelming.

Joel Hardin was on vacation at the time, but was contacted by the USFS administrator for the Mill Creek watershed and expressed an interest in examining the tracks to determine if they were real. Hardin examined the set of tracks allegedly found by Freeman within a few days (2-3) of "discovery. The visable signature impressions were found on an established trail where a seep from perched groundwater had softened the substrate to a mudlike consistency. Hardin observed the presence of potential "ridge detail" in the remaining impressions that were not cast. From memory there were 8 signature impressions that were not cast, at the time Hardin examined them.

I think we can conclude that the apparent, alleged “ridge detail†within these impressions were not casting artifacts via desiccation from casting after the alleged “discoveryâ€. They were observed in the impressions that were not cast and the substrate as described by Hardin was saturated to near ZAV condition. The bottomline here is the substrate would need to be dry enough for a significant MC transfer to occur between the substrate and the casting material for the “ridge detail†to be produced by desiccation.

Does that fact support the notion that the alleged “ridge detail†in these castings are prove positive of the reality of bigfoot? I don’t personally think so.

Hardin did a cut that completely encircled the tracks and determined conclusively that the tracks had a definitive beginning and end. The set of tracks had no continuity. Bigfoot did not walk to the point of orgin of the tracks, nor did it walk away from the last signature impression. Hardin states that for these tracks to be real, bigfoot would had have to have flown in, made the tracks and flown away.

Everything that walks the earth leaves sign of it’s passing. Hardin either missed it or these tracks were faked.

For those that are not familiar with Hardin, Joel is regarded as one of the most proficient trackers to ever gaze at holes in dirt. He not only has a direct connection to Ab Taylor’s legendary signcutters but was actually trained by Taylor. He’s has over 40 years of tracking experience where those years pack in an emmense amount of dirt time, because he tracked every day during his career. This wasn’t a hobby or ancillary skill set for him (like it is with most visual trackers) but what he actually did for a living.

Hardin made additional observations that cast doubt on these impressions:

There was no deviation in either step interval, straddle (offset) or pitch in these tracks, despite visable changes in grade and geomorphology of the substrate the tracks traversed.

There was no indicators of forward momentum (what Brownies typically refer to as pressure release) in these tracks.

Some of the impressions showed clear evidence that the detritus and debris had been cleared away from well beyond the perimeter of the impression prior to the impression being manifested. It was not compressed into the impression.

Another set of impressions (Elk Wallow) were “discovered†by Freeman while Hardin was examining the first set of tracks.

Hardin found the same problems with these as he did the initial set: no continuity, no indicators of forward momentum, and an additional one:

The tracks where in wet, easily impressionable substrate. An obvious elk wallow. The tracks did not sink in and bottom out. Hardin plucked a weed from the ground and pushed it in several inches deeper than the bottom of the tracks. Again, these are supposed to be 15†plus tracks of a massive bigfoot. Yet a weed, which has no compressive strength at all, with minimal applied force, sinks further into the mud than does bigfoot.

These tracks were also examined within a few days of Hardin’s examination by Rod Johnson, a FS biologist who was a proficient animal tracker who had conducted predator track surveys. And they were also examined by the local county SAR trackers. Again within a few days after they were discovered. None of these folks concluded that there was any possible way these tracks were the product of anything but a hoax.

It’s pretty obvious I think for anyone objectively looking at the facts regarding the Freeman tracks from June 1982, that these tracks were obvious fakes.

Ref: Tracker: Case Files and Adventures of a Professional Mantracker, Hardin and Condon

I think the evidence is overwhelming that the “ridge detail†present in the Freeman casts are not the “ridge detail†of bigfoot. The question of “what then are they?†obviously remains. I’ve heard the claims that this evidence would be “impossible to fakeâ€, but I think that conclusion is fairly naïve.

Say for instance, I was a hoaxer. I want to create an apparatus that will allow me to easily reproduce a set of bigfoot tracks in high MC, impressionable substrate like all the Freeman tracks were manifested in. I want to work with easily mallable materials for ease of creation.

I go out and buy a bag of volc’ ash or sieve some fine clay through a #200 sieve (or equivalent) for my medium to mold the fake feet in. I mold the feet and pour into the medium. I get moisture transfer between the plaster (or equivalent) and the medium. Desiccation ridges form on my fake feet. I press my fake feet into fine silty clay or a clay based substrate. The grain size of the substrate is small enough to capture the desiccation ridge detail from my fake feet. I’ve just created “bigfoot tracks†with apparent “ridge detailâ€. That “ridge detail†is just an artifact of the creation process of the fake feet. I’m not even seeing where their appearance in the Freeman tracks even need to be intentional.