The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

What do I base my opinion on? Reality.

Reproducible experiment showing that plaster casting creates artifacts which resemble some lines in a plaster footprint, which are claimed to be from a beast no one can lay a finger on.

You don't have to be a scientist in any field to see the obvious problem here.

How is he qualified to know what a Giant Unclassified Hairy Bipedal Beast's footprints look like? Has he ever seen the foot of one?

Dr Meldrum IS an expert in primate locomotion. He has examined the feet and tracks of many a primate. Officer Chilcutt is a professional, court accepted forensic fingerprint examiner. He also has plenty of experience in examining dermatoglypics.

I'd call that more than sufficient expertise.

[bipedalist]

...."tease" data prior to publication....

Convincing?!

Edited June 19, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Show me we are dealing with a primate foot, and not plaster casting artifacts that can be reproduced in a sand box in my backyard,

Show US that said artifacts are the same as actual dermatoglyphics to a degree of match that they fool credentialed experts in dermatoglyphics and primate anatomy.

And no, simply claiming the existing examples are all artifacts will not do.

Prove Dr Meldrum, Officer Chilcutt, et al are wrong. That is your claim, and the burden of proving it is on you and you alone.

Anything can be faked or misidentified, so if there is one instance of soemthing being misidentified or faked then everything can become suspect. Thats just common sense, right? And if Meldrum, Ketchum, or any other scientist/academic has been wrong in the past should'nt all of their work then be scrutenized to a higher degree? If not then why? I have a personal opinion that because there is the potential for a great deal of fame and fortune to anyone that brings this home there is also a greater chance of "spinning" the information to meet whatever requirement is needed for 'proof".

Law of averages says that if someone is right 99.9% of the time and wrong .1% of the time, then the liklihood of them being in error is vanishingly small.

What evidence do you have that they are wrong in this case?

Not that there is a chance that they might be wrong, but that they are wrong?

Your claim = your burden of proof.

So how do you feel about all those other credentialed zoologists and anthropologists who think the evidence says BF does NOT exist? Are their credentials meaningless?

I'd like to see their laboratory studies, research papers, and other documentation to support their claim. All of which has been provided by proponent scientists.

It also should matter that Dr. Meldrum tends to stand away from the crowd in his circle of colleagues. He doesn't have a lot of other professors agreeing with his findings.

Argument from disagreement. Dr Meldrum's (or any other researchers') work stands or falls on it's own merits, not on whether or not his colleages "agree" with it.

Hasn't anyone ever wondered why there are no two consecutive footprints with matching dermal ridges?

Do you have any proof of that claim?

No one's been able to substantiate that bigfoots exist, but just yesterday you proclaimed that it was time to dispense with this "prove they exist" nonsense.

What a difference a day makes. . .

No, I said that we met the same standard of evidence that would be accepted for any other animal, and thus it was time to dispense with that nonsense.

Get it right.

[Cotter]

If Meldrum came forward publicly and stated he has seen one in person, how would that affect his studies and results?

What if he has admitted not-so-publicly that he has seen one?

[Guest]

Yes they are seen as meaningless by several individuals here everyday. If credentials really meant something to these people, then I should receive the same deference from them that Meldrum does: Meldrum and I are both tenured faculty at US research universities.

Why do my words not carry the same weight as Jeff's? Well, they'll tell you first that I'm a "birdwatcher", so I'm not actually credentialed when it comes to bigfoot. Then they'll tell you that I haven't published any papers on bigfoot, etc. What they won't tell you is that, unlike Meldrum, I haven't been fooled into thinking casts of known hoaxed footprints came from real bigfoot foots. In other words, because Meldrum makes public statements supporting their pet beliefs, it's perfectly okay to commit the argument from authority fallacy.

Care to pony up any actual proof that Meldrum has been "fooled". Got any peer-reviewed papers showing that? Or even any preliminary lab results, or any of the other things you demand of proponents on a regular basis?

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

If Meldrum came forward publicly and stated he has seen one in person, how would that affect his studies and results?

What if he has admitted not-so-publicly that he has seen one?

In theory, it shouldn't affect them at all.

In reality, Skeptics would swarm all over him (as they have Ketchum) implying that his personal observation claim renders any professional judgement he makes inadmissible.

In other words, a classic ad hom attack.

[Guest Darrell]

So, has there been documented identical dermal ridge patterns in consecutive tracks? If not why?

[Guest Tontar]

Prove Dr Meldrum, Officer Chilcutt, et al are wrong. That is your claim, and the burden of proving it is on you and you alone.

Forget all the "ad hom" claims, this is a simple case of "not it!" Trying to be the first to be "not it" so your opponent is "it". Rather than a proponent having to prove something exists, something that has not been conclusively proven to exist, or even halfway convincingly proven to maybe exist, if you can throw out a super fast "not it" before a skeptic says "prove they exist, then we'll talk about dermal ridges", then you can say prove something doesn't exist that nobody can yet prove does exist.

Nobody has to prove Dr. Meldrum or Officer Chilcutt wrong. They, and you, are making the claim that bigfoots are real, and their prints leave dermal ridges in them that remarkably show up in plaster casts of them. The claim to defend is not that Meldrum or Chilcutt are wrong, but rather that they are right. They make the claim that something exists and is real that has very little supporting evidence. The burden of proof lies in the proponent, not the skeptic. Not it!

Edited June 19, 2012 by Tontar

[Guest Particle Noun]

And yet you get to ignore their research and expertise in relation to Dermal ridges because Bigfoot has not been shown, to your standards, to exist? Not it!

It goes round and round, doesn't it? Again, I don't know enough about Dermal ridge evidence, and you in particular have asked some good questions about the research. I hope to look into this a little further myself to see how strong the evidence is in this area.

[Guest Darrell]

^I would hazard that Meldrum knows more about the bigfoot phenomena than I and probably 80% of us here. But that doesnt mean he cant be wrong. Becasue he is a lettered academic also doesnt mean he cant be wrong. If Meldrum, or Ketchum, is right, good for them and the phenomena moves from fantasy to fact. That can only be a win/win right?

Now, as far as the dermal ridge thing, the question to the proponents is this: are the dermal ridges identical consectutively from track to track? Or even from one track to another in the same trackway. If not why?

[Guest]

In other words, because Meldrum makes public statements supporting their pet beliefs, it's perfectly okay to commit the argument from authority fallacy.

Hold on there, Sas...I missed this the first time.

There is a distinct difference between using an expert authority and argument from authority, as you well know:

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
   Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.
   Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.
   Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.
   
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
   If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
   It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.
   It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.
   
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
   If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
   There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.
   It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.
   
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
   If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.
   Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.
   It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.
   
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
   Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.
   What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.
   As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.
   A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.
   
6. The authority in question must be identified.
   A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.
   This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim.
   This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.
   

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Which of the 6 items to determine legitimate authority do you submit that Dr Meldrum fails?

Let's go over them 1 at a time:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

Dr Meldrum is a degree-holding anthropologist whose primary area of research is primate anatomy and locomotion.

Here is a listing of his papers and writings:

Journals:

2006 MacPhee RDE and DJ Meldrum. Postcranial remains of extinct Antillean monkeys (Platyrrhini, Callicebinae, Xenotrichini). American Museum Novitates 3516, 65 pp.

2004 Meldrum, DJ. Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and Sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. J. Scientific Exploration 18:67-79.

2003 Meldrum, DJ and Stephens, TD. Who are the Children of Lehi? Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12:38-51.

1998 Kay, RF, Johnson, D and Meldrum, DJ. A new pitheciin primate from the middle Miocene of Argentina. Am. J. Primatol. 45:317-336.

1997 Meldrum, DJ, Dagosto, MD and White, J. Hindlimb suspension and hindfoot reversal in Varecia variegata and other arboreal mammals. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 103:85-102.

1997 Meldrum, DJ and Kay, RF. A new genus of pitheciine primate from the Miocene of Colombia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 102:407-427.

Edited Volumes:

2004 Meldrum, DJ. Fossilized Hawaiian footprints compared to Laetoli hominid footprints. In DJ Meldrum and CE Hilton (eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. pp. 63-84 , New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishing.

2004 Hilton, CE and Meldrum, DJ, Walkers, Runners, Transporters. In DJ Meldrum and CE Hilton (eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. pp. 1-8, New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishing.

2004 Meldrum, DJ and Hilton, CE (eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishing.

2002 Hartwig, WC and Meldrum, DJ. Miocene platyrrhines of the northern Neotropics. In WC Hartwig (ed.) The Primate Fossil Record. pp. 175-188, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2002 Meldrum, DJ and Jenecke, S. An Eocene titanothere from the Pahsimeroi Valley, Idaho. In: Akersten, WA, Thompson, ME, Meldrum, DJ and Rapp, RA, and McDonald, HG (eds.). And Whereas—Papers on the Vertebrate Paleontology of Idaho Honoring John A. White, Volume 2. Idaho Museum of Natural History Occasional Papers 37, pp. 18-22.

2002 Akersten, WA, Thompson, ME, Meldrum, DJ and Rapp, RA, and McDonald, HG (eds.). And Whereas—Papers on the Vertebrate Paleontology of Idaho Honoring John A. White, Volume 2. Idaho Museum of Natural History Occasional Papers 37, 192 pp.

1998 Akersten, WA, McDonald, HG, Meldrum, DJ and Flint, MET (eds.) And Whereas—Papers on the Vertebrate Paleontology of Idaho, Volume 1. Idaho Museum of Natural History Occasional Paper 36, 216 pp.

1998 Meldrum, DJ. Tail-assisted hindlimb suspension as a transitional behavior in the evolution of prehensile tails, in E Strasser, JG Fleagle, and HM McHenry, (eds.): Advances in Primatology: Primate Locomotion. New York: Plenum Press, 1998, pp. 145- 156.

1997 Kay, RF and Meldrum, DJ. A new small platyrrhine from the Miocene of Colombia and the phyletic position of the callitrichines. In RF Kay, RH Madden, RL Cifelli, and J Flynn (eds.): A History of Neotropical Fauna: Vertebrate Paleontology of the Miocene of Tropical South America. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 435-458.

1997 Meldrum, DJ and Kay, RF. Primate postcranial fossils from the Miocene of Colombia. In RF Kay, RH Madden, RL Cifelli, and J Flynn (eds.): A History of Neotropical Fauna: Vertebrate Paleontology of the Miocene of Tropical South America. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 459-472.

Monographs:

2006 Meldrum, J. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. New York: Forge Books.

2001 Stephens, TD, and Meldrum, DJ, with Petersen, FB. Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, Salt Lake City, Signature Press.

I submit that the above record, even discounting LMS as a monograph, demonstrate that Dr Meldrum has the degree of expertise to qualify.

onwards:

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

Dr Meldrum 's primary area of anthropological research is in primate locomotion, including the analysis of anatomy based on documented tracks. What better type of expert to analyze purported BF tracks for biometric indications of authenticity than a primate locomotion expert?

So he meets the second test.

Onward:

3: There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

This one is a bit problematic, as there is, of course, some dispute between scientists on the issue. HOWEVER, all that means, under the rules for considering authority, is that the expertise is not presumptive of correctness.

So we can not assume Meldrum is correct. Nor can we assume that his detractors (including you, Saskeptic)are correct.

We must therefore fall back on the data.

Please present the peer-reviewed, published studies that specifically refute Dr Meldrum's conclusions. (This is the same standard you propose for proponents, so it's only fair you hold yourself to your own standard).

Next test:

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

Before you even start, reaching a conclusion based on evidence is NOT in any way proof of bias. This is the same issue that some have brought up with Bill Munns and his PGF studies. Because he has a theory that he is attempting to confirm or reject, accusations are made that he is "biased". That, however, is begging the question and/or circular reasoning.

And it begs another question, why are the Skeptic scientists also not presumptively biased due to their "no BF" position?

Once again, we must fall back on evidence proffered. Dr Meldrum has proffered his.

Where is the Skeptic evidence?

Moving on:

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

That primate anthropology is a legitimate area discipline I think is self-evident.

and lastly:

6. The authority in question must be identified.

Again, not worth going into. This is no blind appeal to "science", but rather the citation of a particular, identifiable, person with legitimate credentials and expertise in a relevant field of knowledge.

So, summing up, Dr Meldrum definitely meets 5 of the 6 tests to be considered a legitimate source to cite as an authority, and the one problematic area offers the same objection to those rejecting his expertise, and thus is a wash.

[southernyahoo]

Anything can be faked or misidentified, so if there is one instance of soemthing being misidentified or faked then everything can become suspect. Thats just common sense, right?

No that's just a skeptics thought process. Bear tracks can be hoaxed too, but that wouldn't make them all suspect. The difference is still that you don't know bigfoot exists. Once proven, then we can conclude that some of the tracks are most likely real.

On the subject of consecutive tracks having dermals, I've not heard of any, though I think the prospect of finding real dermals is small in the first place. It takes very fine substrate and yet tacky firm like clay to hold them while the track is cast. The right casting technique used in optimal circumstances can capture them but it is not a given. Just because someone poured plaster in an impression does not mean there would be dermals there, if it were a real bigfoot track to begin with.

[Guest Particle Noun]

I reckon we might have a huge pile of new data on this very subject once the Washington Trackway is properly analyzed. I mean, it was in mud, and there were, what, upwards of 70 consecutive tracks? I hope to see some very interesting results from that in terms of Track Analysis.

[Guest]

Myself, I have a problem with tracks in dirt or sand showing enough detail to have the "dermal ridges" show up in the casting medium. I know its hard to pull finger prints off material thats rough or course. I have always thought using photos is better than casting tracks.

Here is an essay published in Northwest Science about an experiment in dermals. The author notes that faking dermals is technically possible, but notes that the professional forensic print examiners were easily able to determine that the patters were not natural in the test tracks. That dermals were in the tracks pre-pour was never in dispute and was the point of the experiment:

http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_NWS/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1988%20files/Issue%203/v62%20p129%20Bodley.PDF

Here are links toto an experiment that demonstrates dermals in an actual track (pre-casting). The experiment was conducted by Melissa Hovey:

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/dermal-ridges-can-happen.html

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/dermal-ridges-flexion-crea_114831680266574520.html

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/dermal-ridges-flexion-creases-and_12.html

Dr Meldrum also notes several instances in LMS where dermals were observed in the actual track prior to casting.

Forget all the "ad hom" claims, this is a simple case of "not it!"

No, this is a simple case of a you trying to "define your way to victory" by demanding evidence then rejecting every bit of evidence proffered.

Tr

Rather than a proponent having to prove something exists, something that has not been conclusively proven to exist, or even halfway convincingly proven to maybe exist, if you can throw out a super fast "not it" before a skeptic says "prove they exist, then we'll talk about dermal ridges", then you can say prove something doesn't exist that nobody can yet prove does exist.

And will never be able to prove using your standard of "evidence" (to wit: evidence = absolute proof)

Nobody has to prove Dr. Meldrum or Officer Chilcutt wrong.

The people claiming that they are do. That is THEIR claim. Therefore THEIR burden to prove.

They, and you, are making the claim that bigfoots are real, and their prints leave dermal ridges in them that remarkably show up in plaster casts of them. The claim to defend is not that Meldrum or Chilcutt are wrong, but rather that they are right. They make the claim that something exists and is real that has very little supporting evidence.

Only because you throw out every piece of evidence proffered.

Your argument is circular, your logic is flawed.

But, being a Skeptic apparently means that you are immune to the same rules and standards of evidence and debate that the rest of us must adhere to.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Dr. Meldrum himself said that there were very few of his colleagues that agreed with him about bigfoot. He also said that his beliefs and line of research had cost him advancements, as in raises and promotions. Sorry I can't point you to written authentication of this; he said it at the Bigfoot roundup I attended. In other words, he's fairly rogue in his bigfoot research among his colleagues, of yes, anthropologists.

....Dr Meldrum will come out at the top of his class, while the rest of his peers (less or other wise) will have banana's in their hands. He will have the last say in the matter. This I fully believe in with all thy heart.

[ShadowBorn]

I am not sure about tracks and I have seen tracks non had dermal in them. But the way I figure is if you can the dermal ridges with the naked eye then it would worth casting them. The only way that I would say you can see these dermal ridges would be on a fresh hard surface cement or a clay bed creek that has been freshly drained and the creature just walked it or even ran it. The Pgf did show this I believe on the tracks that it left behind. This is just my opinion. I did use Dr. Meldrum report on an essay I had to write in school and it did help my argument.