What's A Skeptic?

[Guest]

I nominate Huntster as the coolest BFF poster of all time. I never miss one of his posts.

[Guest BitterMonk]

I'm not claiming that sasquatches have dermal ridges and that they are different than the dermal ridges from other animals.

For the record, they would have to be different than the dermal ridges of 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.

That's like saying the sky is blue. Indie's photos do seem to show some type of ridge. Nobody argued against that fact. Tube not only claimed but showed beyond a doubt that some casts do indeed have casting artifacts (and had his work replicated numerous times). He (and I and others) have also shown that the casting process can record real dermal ridges under the right conditions.

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.

Dripping with it? Sounds sexy.

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.

Yes? I don't think anyone would argue that bringing in a big old stinky sasquatch foot would be the best solution to the problem. I promise I'm working on it.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Your records are either out of date or I'm misreading the map, but bears in the Northeast have farther south that the map seems to indicate.

Agreed. There ARE bears in Illinois (and not just in Chicago). Been there for several years in the Northwest section. One was photographed in mid Illinois last year all the way down near Galva.

Grizzlies were "extirpated" from CO officially in the 1950's, yet a cub was found and killed in 1952 or 1953, then a sow in 79. Wolves and Woloverines too according to CDOW. Even today they list all 3 species as not in the state, yet I have seen 2 or the 3. Sooo, I dont have much faith in any DOW officials telling the truth

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

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.

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?

Indiefoot, I think your pics are close, clear, and absolutely positively show the pressure ridges in that track. They should show up in the cast with no problem. I don't care if a 400 lb chipmunk made the tracks, there be ridges in them thar prints folks. Great job Indiefoot. People can stick their heads under the sand and repeat over and over "There's no such thing as pressure ridges" but there is, and it's a fact as sure as the creatures have hair. Chris B.

[Incorrigible1]

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?

Indiefoot, do you truly mean SW corner of Kansas, or instead mean the SE corner of Kansas?

[indiefoot]

Sorry.... typo SE Kansas

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 September 2010 - 03:48 PM, said:

I'm not claiming that sasquatches have dermal ridges and that they are different than the dermal ridges from other animals.

For the record, they would have to be different than the dermal ridges of other animals.

Perhaps so, but that is not the point I'm trying to get across. When indiefoot showed the photo with the dermal ridges, it almost immediately made Tube's "research" moot. So Tube was able to create "dermal ridges" with his casts? That has been widely recognized by denialists as destroying dermal evidence in footprints. Indeed, as Chilcutt stated, Green saw the dermal evidence in the precise casts that Tube supposedly discredited.

So now, in order to eliminate the denialist pooh-poohing of dermal evidence in footprint evidence, one must do as indiefoot suggests; photograph it first, then cast it.

(Of course, the denialist cannot be denied. Like an ambulance chasing lawyer, one can always cast doubt, which is the denialists stock in trade: "But how do we know that is the footprint in the photo?...........Who can attest that you casted the footprint that is in the photo?...............etc, etc, ad nauseum).

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.

That's like saying the sky is blue.

1) Except for when the sky is white, like when flying in clouds

2) Or when discussing reality with a denialist

Indie's photos do seem to show some type of ridge. Nobody argued against that fact.

Correct. What somebody did was try to divert.

And it didn't work.

Tube not only claimed but showed beyond a doubt that some casts do indeed have casting artifacts (and had his work replicated numerous times). He (and I and others) have also shown that the casting process can record real dermal ridges under the right conditions.

Correct. And, again, the very print he used to discredit Chilcutt had dermal ridges in it before it was casted as testified by John Green, the man who casted the print. The problem was that he didn't photograph the print before casting it. Thus, the denialist community have been able to discredit the print and entire episode, and use the "casting artifact" game to attempt to do away with dermal evidence altogether. Thus, as indiefoot correctly surmises, one must photograph the print before casting it in order to defeat (we hope) the denialist in the dermal evidence "game".

[Guest UPs]

indie, thank you for sharing that photo with us.

I just read through this thread tonight and am amazed at some of the replies. Indie demonstrated that newer cameras can pick up ridges from at least one type of substrate. What left the prints and ridges is unknown, but I see posters concluding it came from a bear, looks bearish, or whatever. They may be from bear, human, or unknown. From my perspective, if they are bear, they are quite unusual. I have never seen bear prints that have ridges like these. The size of them indicates either it is absolutely huge, or a 'double track'. I see no obvious claw marks and based on the substrate, I would think those marks would be obvious. I am no expert, but the largest black bear print that I have seen was only about 9 inches long and that one was by far the largest track I had ever seen. Here are a couple of pictures that I took this spring and the lighter in the picture is about 3 1/4 inches long. Notice the big toe on the 'wrong' side of the foot. These tracks were weathered quite a bit and about average size for a black bear in my area. I have a couple other pics taken around the same time, but in much different substrate and I may post them too.

For those that state indiefoots pics are black bear, can you tell me the details in the track that made you conclude this? UPs

[Drew]

According to Chilcutt, the dermal ridges run parallel to the outer edge of the foot. The ones on IF's photo look more like a random pattern.

Can anyone blow up the mud OUTSIDE of the print? I'd like to see what the same mud, without any footprint in it looks like.

[Guest RayG]

So now, in order to eliminate the denialist pooh-poohing of dermal evidence in footprint evidence, one must do as indiefoot suggests; photograph it first, then cast it.

If pooh-poohing = skepticism, and photographing first, then casting, would eliminate possible casting artifacts, then it would appear you've hit upon an excellent method for reducing that skepticism. Wouldn't you rather drive the car you're going to purchase first, rather than just purchase it based on a photo?

Anything that brings us closer to the truth gets a thumbs up from me.

RayG

[Guest Hud]

As long as the subject is soles and ridges more than what a skeptic is, I'd like to jump in and take a quick opportunity to ask:

How easy is it to botch, or hard to ensure the appropriate mixture to transfer such fine detail? I've never messed with plaster and wonder how precise the mix would have to be to avoid hearing "You idiot! Now the track and the cast is ruined!"? Could they be destroyed by too thick or heavy a mix or not be transferred by too thin?

I'm just asking how much leeway one has to pick up that type detail or if it would require much practice. Anyone? Thanks

Edited September 30, 2010 by Hud

[southernyahoo]

I think someone like Bittermonk could answer this quite well, but yes, there are different methods in casting depending on the type of substrate and moisture content of the soil. There are also a few tricks to try and preserve fine detail in the tracks like the use of hair spray. I think there is a spray wax also when casting in snow. Using the right amont of casting compound and water would be the primary concern so as not to distort the impression or inadvertently create artifacts that were'nt there in the impression.

[Guest BitterMonk]

When indiefoot showed the photo with the dermal ridges, it almost immediately made Tube's "research" moot.

That is absolutely untrue. Matt's work dealt specifically with what Chilcutt was claiming were dermal ridges. Indiefoot's photos in no way match Chilcutt's alleged ridges. Either Chilcutt is wrong, or Indie is wrong, or they're both wrong, but both can't be right. Continually misrepresenting Matt's work is disingenuous at best.

So Tube was able to create "dermal ridges" with his casts? That has been widely recognized by denialists as destroying dermal evidence in footprints.

Again, you're either deliberately misrepresenting Matt's work or you honestly don't understand it. Matt's work dealt with Chilcutt's claim. He nor I nor anyone else that has replicated his findings have claimed that his work showed in any way that you couldn't have real dermals present in a track, only that what Chilcutt was claiming were dermals were not dermals.

Indeed, as Chilcutt stated, Green saw the dermal evidence in the precise casts that Tube supposedly discredited.

You need to back this up with a direct quote because I'm hearing the exact opposite.

So now, in order to eliminate the denialist pooh-poohing of dermal evidence in footprint evidence, one must do as indiefoot suggests; photograph it first, then cast it.

Nobody is saying that photographing a print first isn't a good idea. In fact, it's a great idea.

Correct. And, again, the very print he used to discredit Chilcutt had dermal ridges in it before it was casted as testified by John Green, the man who casted the print.

Reference or it didn't happen.

The problem was that he didn't photograph the print before casting it.

There are multiple problems. Did you know that Chilcutt referred to the cast by the wrong number (even though it's clearly written on the back)? Were you aware of the fact that Meldrum and Krantz and others used to push casts into a fine substrate in order to copy them instead of producing a mother mold, which is a perfect condition for introducing artifacts?

Thus, the denialist community have been able to discredit the print and entire episode, and use the "casting artifact" game to attempt to do away with dermal evidence altogether.

Again, not true. If anything, a believer should grab on to Matt's work and learn everything they can about it, because it is the foundation by which real evidence can be gained in the future. By understanding the mistakes of the past instead of hanging on to them like dogma we move the field forward.

As long as the subject is soles and ridges more than what a skeptic is, I'd like to jump in and take a quick opportunity to ask:

How easy is it to botch, or hard to ensure the appropriate mixture to transfer such fine detail? I've never messed with plaster and wonder how precice the mix would have to be to avoid hearing "You idiot! Now the track and the cast is ruined!"? Could they be destroyed by too thick or heavy a mix or not be transferred by too thin?

I'm just asking how much leeway one has to pick up that type detail or if it would require much practice. Anyone? Thanks

Mixing the slurry to the manufacturer's recommendation is just fine. Adding a barrier spray like hair spray is also recommended. If the cast is in a substrate that will retain ridge flow patterns then those two steps should net you the proper result.

[indiefoot]

According to Chilcutt, the dermal ridges run parallel to the outer edge of the foot. The ones on IF's photo look more like a random pattern.

Can anyone blow up the mud OUTSIDE of the print? I'd like to see what the same mud, without any footprint in it looks like.

My understanding was that Chilkutt was describing the casting artifacts that run around the outside of the foot. I'm not sure if we have a model for BF dermal patterns now do we. I have not tried to compare what is in these photos to any existing models. Here is a close-up of an area immediately in front of the print.

From this photo

I would also like to point out that this print is heading into a rising area of ground and shows toe tips quite clearly. A close look will show that there are no claw marks present.

[Guest]

That looks like a bear print.