Dermal Ridges & Jimmie Chilcutt: My Favorite Evidence

[Guest LAL]

The cast that Paul Freeman (or another Ranger on the scene) may have "touched up" prior to casting had other characteristics that Jimmy came to regard as marks of authenticity. When he first saw it he put it aside thinking, "I drove 2000 miles for this?"

The story is told in his presentation at the Willow Creek Symposium 2003, available on DVD from the BFRO.

When I talked to him by phone he stood by his observations. He did not think that cast was hoaxed.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I find it worth noting that a number of University Professors have expressed great interest in Bigfoot footprint casts. Grover Krantz is one that comes to mind.

[Guest Transformer]

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.

Pretty hard to ignore such evidence of fakery unless one were to hold their hands over their eyes and loudly sing lalalalalalala! I can't hear you!

Freeman was a self admitted hoaxer that was even caught by Rene Dahinden faking tracks (lucky Dahinden was in a good mood and didn't shoot him!).

To think that anybody would ever think that anything associated with Freeman could have any value (especially given the expert analysis by Hardin backed up by other trackers about this other obvious fakery) is laughable. Come on people do we even want to discuss an admitted hoaxer's hoaxes?

[Guest LAL]

Meaning the "left, left" trackway? Dr. Meldrum talked to Dahinden about that. Dahinden never said that and Dahinden did not catch Freeman hoaxing. He thought he was until matching prints were discovered independently.

The human prints were just in the toe area on one cast and could have been from someone (not necessarily Freeman) touching it out of curiosity or shaping the toe a bit to make it look better for casting.

The rest of the cast passed muster for being the real deal.

Brian Smith claimed on BFF1 that Freeman would shape prints with his hands to fill in where one should have been but wasn't clear in a real trackway they were investigating. Smith also claimed Freeman had his son rehearsing in a suit but the idea Freeman faked footprints seems to have come from his statement on Good Morning America that he'd faked footprints to fool the neighbors.

That's a far cry from faking everything.

[Guest Darrell]

^Thats a great post. So since Freeman only faked or embelished some of his evidence its ok since he probably didnt fake it all? I would think until proven otherwise if he hoaxed some of his evidence all his evidence is questionable. Is'nt that just common sense?

[Guest]

^If you Skeptics had your way there would be NO evidence at all to consider since anything technically can be faked or has alleged to be faked.

Broad brush argumentation is poor logic. Each item in contention must be consiered individually.

[Guest Darrell]

^ So impeachble evidence is better than no evidence?

[Guest Transformer]

Meaning the "left, left" trackway? Dr. Meldrum talked to Dahinden about that. Dahinden never said that and Dahinden did not catch Freeman hoaxing. He thought he was until matching prints were discovered independently.

The human prints were just in the toe area on one cast and could have been from someone (not necessarily Freeman) touching it out of curiosity or shaping the toe a bit to make it look better for casting.

The rest of the cast passed muster for being the real deal.

Brian Smith claimed on BFF1 that Freeman would shape prints with his hands to fill in where one should have been but wasn't clear in a real trackway they were investigating. Smith also claimed Freeman had his son rehearsing in a suit but the idea Freeman faked footprints seems to have come from his statement on Good Morning America that he'd faked footprints to fool the neighbors.

That's a far cry from faking everything.

Do you have a cite for the Meldrum conversation with Dahinden?

Dahinden called the tracks you say "passed muster" fakes and stated that he was 100% sure they were fakes after he interviewed pretty well everybody involved in the hoax including the wildlife biologist and the famous tracker Hardin. He also looked at the reports and the pictures. He also questioned why Krantz didn't talk to Hardin. The Forest Service also stated that their investigation concluded the tracks were hoaxed as well.

Once a hoaxer is caught or in Freeman's case caught hoaxing and admitted hoaxing on National TV then no-one should trust him again. That is how real investigators in the real world operate. Why do sasquatch investigators try to defend wretched useless crap when they could at least try and find or concentrate on something that isn't so tainted?

^ So impeachble evidence is better than no evidence?

Only in this field of endeavor.

[Guest LAL]

Do you have a cite for the Meldrum conversation with Dahinden?

It's in a review by Melrum of Daegling's book. I'll see if I can find it in my disorganized files.

The "left, left" remark was in an article by Dennett, I believe.

Dr. Krantz took Hardin's report apart. Hardin apparently was convinced they were fake before he saw them. That's a different trackway anyway.

Dahinden was one who thought Freeman was "too lucky" but he denied the "left, left" remark and changed his tune after Tollgate.

The suit may have come in to play when Krantz was losing interest and Freeman was getting desparate. The stills are a bit suspicious. I've read about a ridiculous video but haven't seen it. This is not to be confused with Freeman 1994. The prints visible in that film are a match for others photographed by people who didn't know Paul Freeman.

Freeman spent his life after his sighting trying to prove he wasn't a kook. He even moved to be near a hot spot and went out more than just about anyone in the world.

The trackway Dr. Meldrum examined in situ had faint dermatoglyphics that rapidly disappeared in the wet mud.

Even without the Walla Walla casts Elkins Creek and Onion Mountain display similar characteristsics.

There are other examples of dermatoglyphics as well.

"Although the dermatoglyphics in the casts from Walla Walla drew the most attention, they were not the only, or even the first, casts to bear such indications of skin ridge details. I subsequently identified a number of additional casts of sasquatch footprints that also appeared to display patches of ridge detail. An earlier example comes from Blanchard, Idaho, in 1977, and had been investigated by Dr. James McLeod, of North Idaho College, and student John Witherow. A couple witnessed a large hairy figure making its way up the mountainside and across a dirt road on Mt. Spokane. Upon investigation, reserve deputy and experienced tracker Wayne Rasmussen discovered and cast two clear 17.5-inch footprints where the sasquatch had stepped in the moist silty clay of a dissipated puddle. He subsequently tracked the animal for a considerable distance. The tracks had “lines†in them, which resembled dermatoglyphics. Rasmussen made two casts, one of plaster and one of acrylic resin, preserving the dermal ridge detail. I also had the opportunity to carefully examine the original cast material that taxidermist Bob Titmus made on two occasions in 1963 near Hyampom, California. These were made once in fine ash from a slash burn and later in wet soil and mud. One of the casts preserved traces of coarse skin ridge detail along the inside margin of the footprint where the sole pad had expanded under weight and undercut the edge of the footprint. These tracks are also of interest because they indicate the position of the joint at the base of the big toe, the hallucial metatarsophalangeal joint. One cast preserves a pressure ridge just behind the point of joint flexion. A second cast indicates that the foot stepped on a rock and the joint flexed to accommodate it. The lateral toes, especially the third and the fourth, curled sharply over the stone and impressed deeply in front of it. Both of these features correspond to the location of a subtle flexion crease. The large footprints bear a striking resemblance, based on shape and proportions, to the large track originally cast at Bluff Creek in 1958 and are very likely to have been left by the same individual."

Meldrum, Jeff (2010-04-01). Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (Kindle Locations 4433-4449). Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

[Drew]

^If you Skeptics had your way there would be NO evidence at all to consider since anything technically can be faked or has alleged to be faked.

Broad brush argumentation is poor logic. Each item in contention must be consiered individually.

How about you show us one item that isn't in contention?

[Guest]

Anybody can claim contention Drew, particularly on here(the internet), where they can contend, yet remain anonymous, and claim any credentials they choose. Opinion, verses actual contention, are not the same thing in my mind, mostly I just see opinion on here,much of it easily dismissed.

[Guest]

Brian Smith claimed on BFF1 that Freeman would shape prints with his hands to fill in where one should have been but wasn't clear in a real trackway they were investigating.

Coleman says in on of his earlier books that that was a fairly common practice in the early days.

^ So impeachble evidence is better than no evidence?

1) Yes

2) "Impeachable" does not mean "impeached". Can be faked =/= faked.

How about you show us one item that isn't in contention?

Given the propensity of Skeptics to contend everything, (legitimately or otherwise) that's a tall order.

How bout you show us where every single eyewitness report, every single track, every single hair recovered, etc has been conclusively debunked.

Because THAT'S the standard Skeptics have to meet. Proponents need only to be right ONCE. Skeptics need to be right 100% of the time.

[Guest Darrell]

^IMO if your proof or evidence cant dispell reasonable doubt it doesnt mean anything. Right once wrong a hundred times still doesnt hold up.

[Guest]

^If you Skeptics had your way there would be NO evidence at all to consider since anything technically can be faked or has alleged to be faked.

It is the PERSON (Freeman) that I judge, Just because Paul Freeman was a hoaxer does not mean that all other Bigfoot evidence from others should be thrown out. Only the evidence that came from Paul Freeman should be thrown out. All of Freeman's evidence is worthless. You cannot pick and choose "legit" evidence from a hoaxer.

[Guest LAL]

It's really not established Freeman was a hoaxer. Some of his stuff has held up to very intense scrutiny.

E.g.: