What's A Skeptic?

[Guest Lesmore]

I'll trust Kansas Wildlife and Parks who say that NO bears have been reported outside of two counties at the extreme SW corner. You have to twist credibility to put a black bear in North East Kansas to back up your claim that a print was made by one. If one was seen it would be all over the news.

There are prints there of three disticnt sizes. One is 10 X 5 at the ball, one is 8 x 4 at the ball, and one is 15 X 6 at the ball. Do bears run in packs?

Bears don't run in packs, but the female bears and her young bears stay together for a relatively long time. Sometimes a female black bear may have up to three cubs.....that eventually grow quite big...so to some it may look like a 'pack' of 3-4 bears...when in reality it's the mother and her ever growing cubs.

[Guest]

So, without question the range of bears are within 200 miles (within 100 of SW Kansas and even closer to SE Kansas)? We know bears exist. You have a picture of what appears to be the print of a bear. It's a bigfoot print?

The Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks has a "Large Carnivore Response Team" which should be contacted immediately (or as soon thereafter) if you have evidence of a large carnivore. They are very interested in evidence, including photographic evidence.

The KDWP states the following, "No free-ranging individuals or populations of these species are currently known to exist in Kansas, but their immigration into Kansas is a possibility that should not be discounted", and "Today, established populations of black bears occur within short distances of Kansas. The Eastern border of a Colorado-New Mexico black bear population occurs within about 100 miles or so of Southwest Kansas, and an expanding Oklahoma-Missouri-Arkansas population occurs even closer to Southeast Kansas. Both populations are within potential travel distances for dispersing or transient black bears, and in fact, black bears suspected to have originated from each population have been documented in Kansas. No wild black bears are currently known to exist in Kansas". (GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO BLACK BEAR, COUGAR, AND GRAY WOLF REPORTS, June 2004; http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/content/download/20276/136585/file/Carnivore%20Plan.pdf )

[Guest Lesmore]

There have been several remarkable, documented cases of single animal migrations in Alaska. One of them was a problem black bear in Anchorage that got collared. It was a city pest until one day it simply took off and headed south along Turnagain Arm (a "bay" of Cook Inlet, which boasts some of the most radical tides on Earth), until the thing crossed Turnagain Arm (a remarkable feat, even for a wild animal; few thought animals did that), and ended up in the Skilak Lake area of the Kenai Peninsula, a road trip of about 150 miles. Then it's collar sent signals from the same location without moving. When they checked, sure enough, they found the collar cut with a knife and no bear in sight. Irresponsible. It was a legal hunting area. All the hunter had to do was call ADFG. They probably weren't familiar with the regs (can't blame them there; you have to be a part time lawyer in order to live in this society anymore), figured they did something wrong, cut off the collar, and left with the bear.

Another case was of one of a wolf caught in the Fortymile country near the Canadian border where controversial wolf control measures were being debated. One of the "solutions" proposed was to live-catch the wolves and transplant them to areas with smaller wolf populations (dumb; the local wolves will likely kill the interloper, but I guess that makes human emotional basket cases feel better). They brought her to the Knik Glacier near my home. What did the wolf do? She promptly took off to the east immediately, and within 7 days, had travelled over 500 miles to end up right back where they caught her.

Here's an example of a recent, well traveled Polar Bear that was about 100 miles out it's range. Particularly because it traveled in an area quite unlike it's 'normal' (relatively barren, beyond the tree line, shores of Hudson's Bay), to an area which is not conducive to finding it's typical food (seals, etc.).

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/shamattawa-residents-shocked-to-share-woods-with-polar-bear-bearly-believable-101861073.html

BTW...in the last while...the Grizzly Bear has returned to Manitoba. The Grizzly, once native to my large and sprawling province was extirpated many years ago from this region.

The Barrens Grizzly (a Grizzly subspecies I think) has recently started to move into Mb. from the northern territories.

In fact there is confirmed record of at least one, maybe two examples of successful breeding between the Polar and Barren's Grizzly bear.

I believe that the polar Bear is originally descended from the Grizzly....many thousands of years ago.

But in the end...it does show that evolution continues. As the scientist said in Jurassic Park...Nature finds a way.

Les

Edited September 29, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest]

I'm not real familiar with Springhill, KS, but this guy has bear prints photographed, about halfway down the page at the following link:

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/category/kansas-hunting-news/

Based on the map I see it appears to be in the northeast of the state of Kansas.

I think you got some bear print photos and you should contact KDWP ASAP.

[Huntster]

First you said a google of NE Kansas didn't show you any suitable habitat for BF, then you said the print looked "bearish". What changed? The habitat was still the same, but you now have bears walking two hundred miles to get there. You keep going back and forth.

I don't believe all BF live in the deep forest. Small groups make a living however they can, wherever they can.

1) Ideal black bear habitat appears to be synonymous with ideal sasquatch habitat

2) If black bears are capable of and indeed do go on long marches through marginal habitat on occasion, I see no reason why the same might not be true of a sasquatch

[Huntster]

Now, back to the dermal ridges that were the purpose of the photos being posted. Does anyony besides my self think they are pretty obvious. Does anyone think they are castable?

They looked pretty obvious to me.

Are you aware of the "research" Tube did regarding dermal ridge evidence in casted sasquatch tracks? His determination was that they were casting effects that were not in the prints themselves.

Your photos clearly show that not to be the case.

[Guest BitterMonk]

The tracks are either Homo Sapiens Sapiens or Sasquatch, I could go either way.

There are two other options. The more savory is that these are simply misidentified bear tracks. The less savory option is that these are not the track of any living animal, and the apparent dermal evidence was added after the fact.

Are you aware of the "research" Tube did regarding dermal ridge evidence in casted sasquatch tracks? His determination was that they were casting effects that were not in the prints themselves.

Your photos clearly show that not to be the case.

You couldn't be more wrong. If these are legitimate sasquatch dermals they actually reinforce the work that Matt did. These dermals occur in a pattern completely unlike the alleged dermals (casting artifacts) as identified by Chilcutt. Chilcutt's claimed dermals flowed in a pattern that followed the border and major anatomical landmarks. These alleged dermals do no such thing.

[Guest BitterMonk]

Does anyone think they are castable?

As mentioned previously dermal ridges can be recorded in plaster. A muddy or clay soil should be the perfect substrate for capturing and recording dermals.

ETA - Dermals are also a very fragile feature. I've yet to do a test myself but I can't imagine such a fine feature lasting very long in nature.

Edited September 30, 2010 by BitterMonk

[indiefoot]

The reason for my original post was to show that carefully photographed tracks can reveal ridge informaton. I think that is a good idea before you attempt to cast the tracks, photograph them carefully from a number of anles and then cast them.

I'd like to hear from someone with some expertise with dermals to tell whether there is enough data there to tell them anything about what made them.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 September 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Are you aware of the "research" Tube did regarding dermal ridge evidence in casted sasquatch tracks? His determination was that they were casting effects that were not in the prints themselves.

Your photos clearly show that not to be the case.

You couldn't be more wrong. If these are legitimate sasquatch dermals they actually reinforce the work that Matt did. These dermals occur in a pattern completely unlike the alleged dermals (casting artifacts) as identified by Chilcutt. Chilcutt's claimed dermals flowed in a pattern that followed the border and major anatomical landmarks. These alleged dermals do no such thing.

1) My statement regarding Tube has nothing to do with the pattern flow of the photographed footprints, or whether or not they are sasquatch prints. The photo clearly shows ridges that could be picked up in a casting of the print. Tube stated that such ridges in casts were not in the prints, but were casting artifacts.

2) How could Tube show that sasquatch dermal patters were not as Chilcutt claimed, which were different than both human and ape, without attacking the cast itself (since he could not acquire a sasquatch's foot to show otherwise)?

3) See this, a skeptic crowing prematurely:

Recently, a Seattle man, Matt Crowley, obtained a copy of the Onion Mountain cast.7 Crowley, a former pharmacist who now makes a living as an artist, conceived a series of experiments to try and duplicate the circumstances of the Onion Mountain cast. Working with painstaking detail, he tried to recreate the same hot, dry conditions of the original site. The result has been a series of test casts, which (as a product of the casting process) display virtually identical dermal-ridge-type surface characteristics (see figure 2). Crowley presented his findings at three Bigfoot conferences in 2005. The response from the Bigfoot community, so far, has been surprisingly positive.

The Onion Mountain cast displays three distinct patterns. The most obvious of the three is a series of what do look like dermal ridges running along the outside of the track. These are the ridges Chilcutt is referring to when he identifies for the television camera his “flow pattern.†Crowley’s experiments clearly show that Chilcutt’s “pattern†is an artifact of the casting process, appearing in all of the tests. The other two details of the Onion Mountain print are an apparent skin crease across the center of the print (Crowley calls it a curved furrow) and more lines similar to human dermal ridges, but not characteristic of the “flow pattern.†Amazingly we can see these other dermal patterns, including an almost identical curved furrow in Crowley’s experimental casts-again, all artifacts of the process. So compelling are the Crowley experiments that Daniel Perez, who chronicles the search for Sasquatch in his Bigfoot Times newsletter, named Crowley his “Bigfooter of the Year.â€

Even Jeff Meldrum, the chief academic spokesmen for Sasquatch, has grudgingly conceded this piece of evidence for Bigfoot is lost. According to the December 2005 Bigfoot Times, Meldrum is quoted as saying, “However, I caution others not to extend the results of [Crowley’s] experiments beyond the conditions he has investigated, which apply to the Onion Mountain track site.†This is unnecessary, as Crowley has always maintained the Onion Mountain cast was a specific case and the results were the product of this particular set of conditions. But Meldrum is wrong. The Crowley experiments have a larger message: that seemingly impressive “evidence†for the Sasquatch monster can turn out to be no more than one man fooling himself. This is a lesson that is not confined to this specific track.

Questions:

1) Do you see those "ridges" in the photographed prints?

2) Do you claim that those ridges are a "casting artifact"?

3) Do you acknowledge, whether that is a sasquatch print or not, that dermal ridges might be seen in a photograph of a footprint like indiefoot says it might?

[Guest BitterMonk]

I think that is a good idea before you attempt to cast the tracks, photograph them carefully from a number of anles and then cast them.

Absolutely.

[Guest BitterMonk]

1) My statement regarding Tube has nothing to do with the pattern flow of the photographed footprints, or whether or not they are sasquatch prints. The photo clearly shows ridges that could be picked up in a casting of the print. Tube stated that such ridges in casts were not in the prints, but were casting artifacts.

It has everything to do with the pattern flow. Let me simplify my argument. You can't claim that an animal has Type A dermals, and then come with a track that has Type B dermals and say that those are the same things. Indiefoot's photos clearly display a pattern that is completely different than the one claimed by Chilcutt. You either have to accept Chilcutt's version and throw out indie's, or accept indie's and throw you Chilcutt's. You can not have an animal that has two completely different types of dermals.

2) How could Tube show that sasquatch dermal patters were not as Chilcutt claimed, which were different than both human and ape, without attacking the cast itself (since he could not acquire a sasquatch's foot to show otherwise)?

By showing that Chilcutt's alleged dermals are a near identical match to the casting artifact process. Again, I'll make this simple. Let's say you took an eraser, and some pipe cleaner, and a few push pins and put them together and claimed it was a pig. I don't need to go to the farm and get a pig to disprove this. All I need to do is go and show you where you bought your office supplies and how you put them together.

1) Do you see those "ridges" in the photographed prints?

Absolutely.

2) Do you claim that those ridges are a "casting artifact"?

Of course not, but that is a ridiculous question. Nobody has made that claim regarding the photos indie has presented.

3) Do you acknowledge, whether that is a sasquatch print or not, that dermal ridges might be seen in a photograph of a footprint like indiefoot says it might?

Do you have problems with reading comprehension or do you just ignore the massive amounts of information that collide directly with your argument? Matt and myself have both shown very clearly (as linked by me in this very thread) that dermal ridges can be recorded by various substrates and subsequently recorded by plaster and photography.

Edited September 30, 2010 by BitterMonk

[Guest fenris]

Kansas Wildlife and Park thinks there are some bears wandering into the extreme SW corner of Kansas from the Ozarks. That is 200 miles from me. There have been no modern reprts of Black bearss in NE Kansas. That still leaves Homo Sapiens Sapiens as a possible for any hominid shaped tracks here. Although you make a good point about the narrow heel.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/mbsp/fs/blbear.html

Your records are either out of date or I'm misreading the map, but bears in the Northeast have farther south that the map seems to indicate.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 September 2010 - 03:18 PM, said:

1) My statement regarding Tube has nothing to do with the pattern flow of the photographed footprints, or whether or not they are sasquatch prints. The photo clearly shows ridges that could be picked up in a casting of the print. Tube stated that such ridges in casts were not in the prints, but were casting artifacts.

It has everything to do with the pattern flow. Let me simply my argument. You can't claim that an animal has Type A dermals, and then come with a track that has Type B dermals and say that those are the same things. Indiefoot's photos clearly display a pattern that is completely different than the one claimed by Chilcutt. You either have to accept Chilcutt's version and throw out indie's, or accept indie's and throw you Chilcutt's. You can not have an animal that has two completely different types of dermals.

Are you having a difficult time reading my simple statements? Let's try it like this:

I'm not claiming that sasquatches have dermal ridges and that they are different than the dermal ridges from other animals. I'm claiming that the photographs on this thread show "ridges", that they are not a "casting artifact", Tube claimed that the ridges in some casts were "casting artifacts", and that skeptic extraordinaire Michael Dennett claimed that Tube's "research" was a slam dunk on such evidence.

I have already posted and linked enough to establish that, and I am prepared to carry it on until you are literally dripping with it.

2) How could Tube show that sasquatch dermal patters were not as Chilcutt claimed, which were different than both human and ape, without attacking the cast itself (since he could not acquire a sasquatch's foot to show otherwise)?

By showing that Chilcutt's alleged dermals are a near identical match to the casting artifact process.

Thank you. That is exactly what I've already stated.

And, again, do you see the ridges in the photos indiefoot has shown? Are they a casting artifact?

Edited September 30, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

Again, I'll make this simple. Let's say you took an eraser, and some pipe cleaner, and a few push pins and put them together and claimed it was a pig. I don't need to go to the farm and get a pig to disprove this. All I need to do is go and show you where you bought your office supplies and how you put them together.

Correct.

And if you took an eraser, and some pipe cleaner, and a few push pins and put them together and claimed it was a pig, and indiefoot did go to the farm and get a pig to disprove this, it is as good or better than going to show you where you bought your office supplies and how you put them together.

1) Do you see those "ridges" in the photographed prints?

Absolutely.

2) Do you claim that those ridges are a "casting artifact"?

Of course not, but that is a ridiculous question. Nobody has made that claim regarding the photos indie has present.

3) Do you acknowledge, whether that is a sasquatch print or not, that dermal ridges might be seen in a photograph of a footprint like indiefoot says it might?

Do you have problems with reading comprehension or do you just ignore the massive amounts of information that collide directly with your argument? Matt and myself have both shown very clearly (as linked by me in this very thread) that dermal ridges can be recorded by various substrates and subsequently recorded by plaster and photography.

Thank you for that clear admission (see? I don't have problems with reading comprehension or ignore any amounts of information that collide directly with my argument).

Hopefully Mr. Dennett might learn something:

Although Chilcutt admits Crowley’s work duplicated the friction ridges on the Onion Mountain cast, he maintains that the impression is of the foot of a real animal. He explains, “the Walla Walla [Wrinkle Foot] and Elkins casts display similar dermals to Onion Mountain.†Even the flow pattern appears in the Elkins impression, “although it is hard to see.†Besides, Chilcutt informed me, “John Green told me he saw the dermal ridges in the actual [Onion Mountain] track.â€

But I doubt it. Call me a skeptic.