Faking dermal ridges Options

[Guy]

So I caught the infamous National Geographic BF program last weekend, and they showed Sarmento making latex casts and swelling them by soaking them in paint thinner. They also said something about him combining human and ape dermal ridges to possibly hoax BF prints. My questions: wouldn't swelling latex casts cause the dermal ridges to distort and blur? And combining differing dermal ridges just doesn't sound right to me. You would need to make sure the ridges ran unbroken. Simply combining different ridges would result in random starts and stops rather than a natural flowing pattern. At least, that's what I think. I could be wrong. And then to add scarring to the ridges? Maybe it can be hoaxed, but I'm very doubtful that Sarmiento's methods would fool a man like Chillcutt. Thoughts?

[Recon]

I think anyone caught hoaxing tracks or anything should be hung up side down by their feet and left out in a area of activity known very well that has bigfoot activiy and leave them over night just so they can get a very up close look at the big guy and then see how they feel about hoaxing tracks or anything else after words. If that don't work just shoot them.

[GuyInIndiana]

I think anyone caught hoaxing tracks or anything should be hung up side down by their feet and left out in a area of activity known very well that has bigfoot activiy and leave them over night just so they can get a very up close look at the big guy and then see how they feel about hoaxing tracks or anything else after words. If that don't work just shoot them.

Great. But that wasn't what the "Guy" was asking or wanting to discuss.

[Guy]

Let me clarify. Sarmiento wasn't perpetrating a hoax, simply demonstrating how he thought it could be done.

[rams]

"Blowing up" the foot print by the method shown would of course also enlargen the dermal ridges by the same ratio-something I think that would be clearly evident. If the ridges on a BF print are the same size as human or ape ridges, then this method likely could not have been used to create the BF print.

[damndirtyape]

Generally speaking, the dermal ridges identified to date on select castings are approxiamtely 0.100" wide. Human and ape are smaller; human being around 0.050" and ape inbetween the two.

[wolftrax]

I wasn't convinced by Dr. Sarmiento's presentation of faking dermal ridges. For one thing the primate prints were in a kind of hodgepodge manner, whereas Jimmy Chilcutt had found a repetitive pattern in sasquatch tracks that didn't at all match primate ridge flow patterns as well as human patterns, and the enlarged kerosene human fake foot would've had a human dermal ridge flow pattern.

[RogerKni]

I think anyone caught hoaxing tracks or anything should be hung up side down by their feet and left out in a area of activity known very well that has bigfoot activiy and leave them over night just so they can get a very up close look at the big guy

Here's one miscreant who got an up-cose look!

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Apr 4 2005, 07:37 PM

Attached image(s)

 

[Volsquatch]

At this time, no one knows conclusively what is causing these patterns to show up in the prints.

[Yetifan]

volsquatch wrote:

At this time, no one knows conclusively what is causing these patterns to show up in the prints.

A most excellent point.

[Bfooter]

I know the scientific BF community is trying to get everyone (especially other scientists) to take a closer and more serious look at BF evidence , but in my opinion the dermal ridge patterns should have been kept confidential between scientists only.

Now that the world knows I'm sure it can and probably will be duplicated by a hoaxer with way too much time on their hands.

This post has been edited by Bfooter: Apr 4 2005, 10:11 PM

[lt1956]

Even if today you can fake dermal ridges, that technology wasnt there in the early 1980's where one of these cast has dermal ridges. also the fakes would cost alot of money to do and would only fool an expert a couple times. I dont think people really know how hard it is to fool police now. lol

Lt

[Judaculla]

This lack of knowledge and technology argument falls on its face if one of two cases were true. (1) The dermal ridges were an unintentional by-product of the fabrication process. Volsquatch's wood-grain hypothesis falls in here. Daegling has also suggested something along these lines. (2) Copies were made of a primate foot (say, a howler monkey) that were precisely enlarged (without distortion, which has its own challenges) or slightly modified in gross shape while maintaining details. You don't have to know what those details are in order to make the copies.

To use an analogy, I don't have to know diddly about writing Chinese to reproduce some very nice looking characters. I just take a page written in Chinese and put it on the copier. I can shrink, enlarge, cut, paste, whatever.... all without knowing what all those little squiggles mean.

I don't think that's the explanation for the dermal ridges..... I just don't think the knowledge/technology point is a strong one.

[damndirtyape]

There will be some lively demonstrations and disscussions on this very subject at both the Seattle and Bellingham conferences this year.

[Yetifan]

Perhaps it would be interesting to get a captive orang, gorilla or chimp to walk upright on some muddy or semi-muddy surface, then cast those prints and compare any "conclusive" dermal ridges left by them to the alleged dermal ridges on alleged squatch casts. Obviously this is not a foot shape comparison, just a "real dermal ridges" to "possibly real dermal ridges" experiment.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Apr 5 2005, 10:02 AM

[crewchf]

Has anyone checked out human tracks in mud to see if dermal ridges show up?? I'll bet not all dirt is conductive for this test to prove out positive!!

Crew Chief

[seadog]

I saw the same show. I would like get the opinion of the finger print expert that has been on a few of the BF documenteries. I can't remember his name, but the guys seems to know what he's talking about.

Can one of these fake cast with dermal ridges fool him?

[lt1956]

They cant, its crock a crap. Fool an investigator once, but not twice, he seen that the freeman foot MAY be faked, but the other two he believes are real. The woodgrain one is the funniest, if these people really understood fingerprints they wouldnt even mention something as Stupid as that, as for the fakes, its way too complicated for back then, remember the personal PC wasnt even started yet.

Lt1956

[Bitter Monk]

In area the ridges flow lengthwise along the side of the foot. This does not occur in the human or the known non-human primate. This ridge flow is also consistent with the 1967 Blue Creek Mountain Road cast and the 1984 Walla Walla, Table Spring cast.

From Jimmy Chilcutt's report on the dermal's found on a cast taken from Georgia.

[Judaculla]

They cant, its crock a crap. Fool an investigator once, but not twice, he seen that the freeman foot MAY be faked, but the other two he believes are real. The woodgrain one is the funniest, if these people really understood fingerprints they wouldnt even mention something as Stupid as that, as for the fakes, its way too complicated for back then, remember the personal PC wasnt even started yet.

Lt1956

You might want to exercise a bit more care in throwing around the insults. The person who was considering the wood grain hypothesis posts here, and the last thing I would call him is stupid.

What does the "personal" PC have to do with any of this?

"Personal" is in quotes, because it's redundant. Personal personal computer.... it's like saying ATM machine.

This post has been edited by Judaculla: Apr 5 2005, 01:57 PM

[AnotherPullTab]

So I caught the infamous National Geographic BF program last weekend, and they showed Sarmento making latex casts and swelling them by soaking them in paint thinner. They also said something about him combining human and ape dermal ridges to possibly hoax BF prints. My questions: wouldn't swelling latex casts cause the dermal ridges to distort and blur? And combining differing dermal ridges just doesn't sound right to me. You would need to make sure the ridges ran unbroken. Simply combining different ridges would result in random starts and stops rather than a natural flowing pattern. At least, that's what I think. I could be wrong. And then to add scarring to the ridges? Maybe it can be hoaxed, but I'm very doubtful that Sarmiento's methods would fool a man like Chillcutt. Thoughts?

Im not Jimmy, but Ive got a lot of the same fingerprint training as he does so I wanted to comment on something.

When that guy took various ape and monkey prints and tried to imprint the ridge detail etc. I had to laugh. Not only would anyone with even one day of basic fingerprinting be able to see that this had been done, but I would even suggest that the typical non-technical person could too. Loops and whorls would be repeated, points of comparison would be repeated, etc.

It simply wouldnt stand up to the investigation.

[Blackdog]

Perhaps it would be interesting to get a captive orang, gorilla or chimp to walk upright on some muddy or semi-muddy surface, then cast those prints and compare any "conclusive" dermal ridges left by them to the alleged dermal ridges on alleged squatch casts.  Obviously this is not a foot shape comparison, just a "real dermal ridges" to "possibly real dermal ridges" experiment.

In area the ridges flow lengthwise along the side of the foot. This does not occur in the human or the known non-human primate. This ridge flow is also consistent with the 1967 Blue Creek Mountain Road cast and the 1984 Walla Walla, Table Spring cast.

From Jimmy Chilcutt's report on the dermal's found on a cast taken from Georgia

I'm not sure what you're suggesting Scott. Do you find Chilcutt an unreliable source of information? Or is this just a way to study primate dermals on your own?
I think you could find plenty of images of primate prints with dermals on the web, granted it wouldn't be a great control group but you wouldn't achieve that with your suggestion either.

[damndirtyape]

Unfortunately there are only two purported Bigfoot casts that have enough contiguous dermal ridge covering to be able to determine if there is duplication of the same pattern; "Wrinkle Foot" and "Onion Mt.".

I do not believe anybody has ever faked dermal ridges before, though I believe it might be possible with repeated glove / kerosene applications. Soaking a non-compatabile latex rubber glove, while on the human hand, in kerosene might bleed ridges through beneath it and then expand so that one could touch up a track.

I also do not believe that wooden feet would give the desired effect, even if the soft parts of the wood were sandblasted out and the device articulated.

If there is any other answer to the dermal ridge patterns found on some castings, the likely culprit is with the casting process IMHO.

[Yetifan]

Blackdog quoted and wrote:

QUOTE (Yetifan @ Apr 5 2005, 10:57 AM)
Perhaps it would be interesting to get a captive orang, gorilla or chimp to walk upright on some muddy or semi-muddy surface, then cast those prints and compare any "conclusive" dermal ridges left by them to the alleged dermal ridges on alleged squatch casts.  Obviously this is not a foot shape comparison, just a "real dermal ridges" to "possibly real dermal ridges" experiment.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting Scott. Do you find Chilcutt an unreliable source of information? Or is this just a way to study primate dermals on your own?
I think you could find plenty of images of primate prints with dermals on the web, granted it wouldn't be a great control group but you wouldn't achieve that with your suggestion either.

For Chilcutt's opinion to have more weight, peer review is necessary in my opinion.
This is common scientific procedure. One expert's opinion, especially regarding the possibility of a heretofore unclassified upright ape, doesn't constitute strong proof. If so, the Piltdown hoax may have never been revealed for what it was. This is not to say or even suggest that Chilcutt's opinions are wrong or skewed or that various prints with apparent dermal ridging were faked or misinterpreted. Just that corroboration from other experts would strengthen the case. Also, how dermal ridging appears from fingerprinting may be somewhat different when derived from a muddy footprint. But since, obviously, we don't have a confirmed Bigfoot foot for comparison, it seems worth it to me. Personally, I find some of the dermal ridge evidence presented by Chilcutt to be quite compelling.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Apr 5 2005, 03:16 PM

[damndirtyape]

Wonder why no one has ever mentioned fashioning fake feet with ridge scrapings made out of the fatter parts of Moose antlers? The slight curve might produce interesting tracks and would be a heck of a lot tougher then common wood.

[Saskwatcher]

So I caught the infamous National Geographic BF program last weekend, and they showed Sarmento making latex casts and swelling them by soaking them in paint thinner. They also said something about him combining human and ape dermal ridges to possibly hoax BF prints. My questions:  wouldn't swelling latex casts cause the dermal ridges to distort and blur? And combining differing dermal ridges just doesn't sound right to me. You would need to make sure the ridges ran unbroken. Simply combining different ridges would result in random starts and stops rather than a natural flowing pattern. At least, that's what I think. I could be wrong. And then to add scarring to the ridges? Maybe it can be hoaxed, but I'm very doubtful that Sarmiento's methods would fool a man like Chillcutt. Thoughts?

Im not Jimmy, but Ive got a lot of the same fingerprint training as he does so I wanted to comment on something.

When that guy took various ape and monkey prints and tried to imprint the ridge detail etc. I had to laugh. Not only would anyone with even one day of basic fingerprinting be able to see that this had been done, but I would even suggest that the typical non-technical person could too. Loops and whorls would be repeated, points of comparison would be repeated, etc.

It simply wouldnt stand up to the investigation.

I believe APT has made a Key Point.

[Blackdog]

Blackdog quoted and wrote:

QUOTE (Yetifan @ Apr 5 2005, 10:57 AM)
Perhaps it would be interesting to get a captive orang, gorilla or chimp to walk upright on some muddy or semi-muddy surface, then cast those prints and compare any "conclusive" dermal ridges left by them to the alleged dermal ridges on alleged squatch casts.  Obviously this is not a foot shape comparison, just a "real dermal ridges" to "possibly real dermal ridges" experiment.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting Scott. Do you find Chilcutt an unreliable source of information? Or is this just a way to study primate dermals on your own?
I think you could find plenty of images of primate prints with dermals on the web, granted it wouldn't be a great control group but you wouldn't achieve that with your suggestion either.

For Chilcutt's opinion to have more weight, peer review is necessary in my opinion.
This is common scientific procedure. One expert's opinion, especially regarding the possibility of a heretofore unclassified upright ape, doesn't constitute strong proof. If so, the Piltdown hoax may have never been revealed for what it was. This is not to say or even suggest that Chilcutt's opinions are wrong or skewed or that various prints with apparent dermal ridging were faked or misinterpreted. Just that corroboration from other experts would strengthen the case. Also, how dermal ridging appears from fingerprinting may be somewhat different when derived from a muddy footprint. But since, obviously, we don't have a confirmed Bigfoot foot for comparison, it seems worth it to me. Personally, I find some of the dermal ridge evidence presented by Chilcutt to be quite compelling.

I agree but I don't think too many of us here are what anyone would consider a peer of Chilcutt.

[Wildman]

Wonder why no one has ever mentioned fashioning fake feet with ridge scrapings made out of the fatter parts of Moose antlers? The slight curve might produce interesting tracks and would be a heck of a lot tougher then common wood.

Moose antlers! :doh:

It's so obvious! Now why didn't I think of that?

[Wildman]

I agree but I don't think too many of us here are what anyone would consider a peer of Chilcutt.

That's a huge problem, in that who else in the world shares his knowledge of human and non-human primate dermal ridges? He's pretty much "the guy" in that respect, by default. A man without peers, so-to-speak.

[Yetifan]

Blackdog quoted and wrote:

QUOTE (Yetifan @ Apr 5 2005, 04:10 PM)
Blackdog quoted and wrote:

QUOTE
QUOTE (Yetifan @ Apr 5 2005, 10:57 AM)
Perhaps it would be interesting to get a captive orang, gorilla or chimp to walk upright on some muddy or semi-muddy surface, then cast those prints and compare any "conclusive" dermal ridges left by them to the alleged dermal ridges on alleged squatch casts.  Obviously this is not a foot shape comparison, just a "real dermal ridges" to "possibly real dermal ridges" experiment.


I'm not sure what you're suggesting Scott. Do you find Chilcutt an unreliable source of information? Or is this just a way to study primate dermals on your own?
I think you could find plenty of images of primate prints with dermals on the web, granted it wouldn't be a great control group but you wouldn't achieve that with your suggestion either.

Yetifan wrote:
For Chilcutt's opinion to have more weight, peer review is necessary in my opinion.
This is common scientific procedure. One expert's opinion, especially regarding the possibility of a heretofore unclassified upright ape, doesn't constitute strong proof. If so, the Piltdown hoax may have never been revealed for what it was. This is not to say or even suggest that Chilcutt's opinions are wrong or skewed or that various prints with apparent dermal ridging were faked or misinterpreted. Just that corroboration from other experts would strengthen the case. Also, how dermal ridging appears from fingerprinting may be somewhat different when derived from a muddy footprint. But since, obviously, we don't have a confirmed Bigfoot foot for comparison, it seems worth it to me. Personally, I find some of the dermal ridge evidence presented by Chilcutt to be quite compelling.

Blackdog wrote:
I agree but I don't think too many of us here are what anyone would consider a peer of Chilcutt.

Therein lies somewhat of a quandry. If none here are peers of Chilcutt (in the sense of having equal or better powers of primate dermal ridge expertise) how do we know what he's saying is valid? Hence, the need for other corroborating opinions (if, indeed, that turns out to be the case) from other experts. If the hoaxer from Indiana had never fessed up to creating the fake cast Krantz had said met his two "secret" criteria for identifying real Bigfoot prints, many would probably still believe Krantz was right. BTW...I wasn't suggesting that anyone on this list was an expert of equal stature w/Chilcutt, just that others with somewhat comparable experience and knowhow (if any) should take a look at Chilcutt's evidence and his claims. My understanding is that, so far, Chilcutt has been reluctant to share his specific evidence, notes, etc. with those closely related to his field. That may not be the case. But if it is, in science, that ain't ever good.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Apr 5 2005, 04:02 PM

[Blackdog]

My understanding is that, so far, Chilcutt has been reluctant to share his specific evidence, notes, etc. with those closely related to his field. That may not be the case. But if it is, in science, that ain't ever good.

Nope it isn't. Where did you hear that?

[ecwool]

There will be some lively demonstrations and disscussions on this very subject at both the Seattle and Bellingham conferences this year.

From what I understand, Matt Crowley will have some interesting things to say about Chilcutt's determination on dermal ridges on Bigfoot footprint casts.

[AnotherPullTab]

DDA said:

I do not believe anybody has ever faked dermal ridges before, though I believe it might be possible with repeated glove / kerosene applications. Soaking a non-compatabile latex rubber glove, while on the human hand, in kerosene might bleed ridges through beneath it and then expand so that one could touch up a track.

Wearing latex/rubber gloves is not a guarantee that you will not leave prints of your own. As debris, body oil etc. builds up on the gloves, a transference of material takes place and can place prints on the object.