What's A Skeptic?

[Huntster]

According to Chilcutt, the dermal ridges run parallel to the outer edge of the foot.

That is not accurate, and may be completely incorrect:

……Chilcutt is considered an expert in primate finger printing and has prints on every known primate. He explained dermal lines in the sasquatch tracks run vertical, while those of man are horizontal, and apes are slanted.

In addition, Chilcutt found the dermal ridges of sasquatch to be about twice the thickness of humans.

He also noticed many prints showed variations in the splay of toes within the same set of prints, which could not be replicated if someone strapped on plaster molds to the bottom of their feet. Chilcutt found scarring, which would cause the dermal ridges to curve inward........

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 September 2010 - 06:50 PM, said:

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.

Actually, indiefoot has done so. I'm just enjoying it.

Wouldn't you rather drive the car you're going to purchase first, rather than just purchase it based on a photo?

I'm not in the car market. I drive an Argo in the woods.

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

What is truth?

[indiefoot]

That looks like a bear print.

Do you see claw marks in that print? There are tears in the surface of the mud, but I'm not seeing anything I would call a claw mark and since the print is headed up hill it should have one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for Squatch, I am arguing against bear. They could be Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 29 September 2010 - 06:50 PM, said:

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.

Including casts which John Green clearly stated that dermal ridges were visible before the casting. Tube's "research" simply "confirmed" that footprint casting can create imperfections (Wow! What an amazing scientific "discovery"!), and it is widely seen (manipulated by denialists, actually) as destroying the validity of Chilcutt's qualifications and determinatins.

Indifoot's photo and advice to photograph first makes Tube's "research" moot.

Indiefoot's photos in no way match Chilcutt's alleged ridges.

Again, (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, if necessary) I am not claiming that indiefoot's photo shows a sasquatch footprint, a bear's footprint, a human's footprint, or an extraterrestrial's footprint. The value of that photo and advice is to destroy the doubt casting of denialists.

Continually misrepresenting Matt's work is disingenuous at best.

It is genuine. Period.

And I'm looking to condemn his silly sandals on the beach, too, if I get a chance, just like denialists seek to condemn evidence..............

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.

To eliminate doubt (you know how I just hate doubt), please clarify which "Chilcutt claim" you are referring to.

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.

I already gave it to you, directly from the skeptical website:

Chilcutt informed me, “John Green told me he saw the dermal ridges in the actual [Onion Mountain] track.â€

“Not true,†replies Crowley. “I contacted John Green and specifically asked about dermals in the original footprint. I e-mailed him the question and he confirmed by return e-mail he did not see friction ridges in the Onion Mountain track before a cast was made.â€

So who's the liar?

This is the kitakaze style "investigation" of doubt insertion. It works only because it's so easy to create doubt. Any visit to a courtroom can prove that.

[Huntster]

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.

It's mandatory, if one wishes to keep denialists at bay.

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)?

And, additionally, there were the classic questions from the denialists that it wasn't the original, because of the numbering.

Classic ambulance chasing BS. Attack the chain of custody, attack methods, attack, attack, attack with doubt. Yeah, I know what's going on.

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?

Yeah, and I'm even aware of the wire brush stuff. What do you expect from amateurs? It's easy for lawyer types to destroy evidence.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

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.

Like the courts have "moved forward" after so perfectly dealing with ambulance chasers.

[Guest]

Do you see claw marks in that print? There are tears in the surface of the mud, but I'm not seeing anything I would call a claw mark and since the print is headed up hill it should have one.

...

I think the tears at the tip of the toes are the claw marks. What time of year and where were these found (SE Kansas)? What was the size (10x5 or something)? Can you confirm the details again? Also, I posted and then PM'd you regarding the Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks Large Carnivore Response Team information. Would you feel comfortable contacting them regarding the prints? If not, may I forward your pictures as posted here?

[Guest BitterMonk]

That is not accurate, and may be completely incorrect:

I'm sorry but I'm out of this conversation. If you can't even figure out what was wrong with what you posted in response to Drew's assertion then I am absolutely wasting my time trying to discuss this with you. Best of luck my friend and hope the hunting seasons are generous to you.

[Drew]

I'm sorry but I'm out of this conversation. If you can't even figure out what was wrong with what you posted in response to Drew's assertion then I am absolutely wasting my time trying to discuss this with you. Best of luck my friend and hope the hunting seasons are generous to you.

I agree.

From the very article you posted in response to my statement:

The print ridges... flowed lengthwise along the foot

[Guest]

Moderator Hat On

I realize this thread has really developed and changed course since it started. I'm not against that necessarily. However, let's all maintain civility and respect for other posts and ideas.

Moderator Hat Off

[Will]

Wow that Chilcutt article was fascinating.

So how exactly would you fake dermals that run lengthwise and move with the splaying of the toes and do it with hundreds of trackways around the country?

Do I have that question right or am I not getting it?

[indiefoot]

I think the tears at the tip of the toes are the claw marks. What time of year and where were these found (SE Kansas)? What was the size (10x5 or something)? Can you confirm the details again? Also, I posted and then PM'd you regarding the Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks Large Carnivore Response Team information. Would you feel comfortable contacting them regarding the prints? If not, may I forward your pictures as posted here?

The pics were found and photographed in late May or early June on 2007. I'm at work and don't have the original images file to get the date from. They were taken in N.E. Kansas. The sizes were !0 x 5, 8 x 4, and 15 x 6.

[Guest]

Thanks.

[Drew]

Wow that Chilcutt article was fascinating.

So how exactly would you fake dermals that run lengthwise and move with the splaying of the toes and do it with hundreds of trackways around the country?

Do I have that question right or am I not getting it?

The question is, was Chilcutt looking at dermals, or was he interpreting casting artifacts as dermals?

I'd suggest these articles for anyone interested in Bigfoot dermal ridges:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/dermal-ridges-and-scars/

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/an-experimentally-produced-desiccation-ridge-that-mimics-an-arch/

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/the-testimony-of-perry-tuttle-of-us-gypsum/

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/the-solid-science-of-sam-rich/

You might ask yourself why Jeffrey Meldrums casts appeared to Jimmy Chilcutt to have Dermal Ridges running parallel to the outside of the feet? Well, here is just a round impression, with 'Dermal Ridges' running parallel to the outside of the impression.

[Guest BitterMonk]

Wow that Chilcutt article was fascinating.

So how exactly would you fake dermals that run lengthwise and move with the splaying of the toes and do it with hundreds of trackways around the country?

Do I have that question right or am I not getting it?

There aren't hundreds of trackways exhibiting these alleged dermals. Chilcutt only claimed to find them on a handful of casts (and none from the same trackway).

The pattern of the artifacts is explained by the process by which they are created. They radiate outward from the point of pour and naturally parallel all geographic features of the print. They also increase in size exponentially in relation to the size of the cast.

[Guest]

...

You might ask yourself why Jeffrey Meldrums casts appeared to Jimmy Chilcutt to have Dermal Ridges running parallel to the outside of the feet? Well, here is just a round impression, with 'Dermal Ridges' running parallel to the outside of the impression.

My sourdough pancakes have marks similar to that. On the pancakes they are flat lines, but they are parallel to the outside of the pancake. Has to do with the pour and how it layers (in a sense) as the material flows out from the center. Also has to do with the consistency of the batter. I don't know why, but those rounds casts make me wish I'd bought more maple syrup.