Footprint as Material Evidence, Could Dermal Ridge data settle it? Options

[ilex]

Here is some data that claims that a "Non-human Primate" produced 17.5 inch footprints based on clear dermal ridge analysis.

Footprint with clear dermal ridges and analysis

Is there any reason why such evidence should not be able to establish the existence of Sasquatch??

Wayne

[Josh Willard]

Well, I first of all was told that dermal ridges are supposed to go downwards. Lastly, it could be possible to fake the dermal prints if you were an ultimate pro.

[ILresearcher]

Public listen to scientists and the scientists are afraid to answers! Ridges details is very diffcult to be hoax.

[ilex]

Well, I first of all was told that dermal ridges are supposed to go downwards. Lastly, it  could be possible to fake the dermal prints if you were an ultimate pro.

Depends on the media. IE Clay is stickier than sand. Do you suppose such a "pro" exists, or is it just a theoretical possibility?

Wayne

[Josh Willard]

I'm thinking it is a possibility, but a very low one.

[jorgsor]

Quote byILresearcher Posted on Jun 27 2005, 09:23 AM

Public listen to scientists and the scientists are afraid to answers! Ridges details is very diffcult to be hoax. 

I agree with what ILresearcher is saying in most of cases, but when it is regarding certain topics like Sas, skeptics would never accept anything less than a body or a very clear picture/video as a final proof [actually a body more than anything else since they tend to believe that videos can be manipulated/hoaxed and unfortunately there are many that have been hoaxed]

The reality is that if dermal ridges where good enough evidence (for skeptics that is) then Bigfoot had been already proven to exist long time ago.....

My two cents...

This post has been edited by jorgsor: Jun 27 2005, 11:38 AM

[Wildman]

Here is some data that claims that a "Non-human Primate" produced 17.5 inch footprints based on clear dermal ridge analysis.

Footprint with clear dermal ridges and analysis

Is there any reason why such evidence should not be able to establish the existence of Sasquatch??

Wayne

There would have to be more to go on than just one man's opinion, regardless of his qualifications. A peer-review would be a step in the right direction, however there are very few, if any, with the education and experience in non-human primate dermal ridge analysis that Chilcutt has. All possibilities of a hoax have to be ruled out, and without peer-review, all we have is Chilcutt's word. That isn't good enough.

[ilex]

Would Chilcutt find it difficult to publish this?? Wonder we it hasn't been done?

Wayne

[Wildman]

Would Chilcutt find it difficult to publish this?? Wonder we it hasn't been done?

Wayne

Many of us have wondered this. There were a few casts that Chilcutt has examined, but from what I understand he didn't keep any formal records of his findings. Maybe since he is retired now, he'll pursue it further.

[Huntster]

...Is there any reason why such evidence should not be able to establish the existence of Sasquatch??...

Dermal evidence has been used for over 100 years to convict people of capital crimes.

If it isn't enough evidence to establish the existence of sasquatch, then why should it be used to sentence people to death?

[tugboatwa]

Dermal ridge evidence has been cast into doubt by Matt Crowley's research into dermal ridges and casting artifacts.

[micahn]

For about the 1 million time. Nothing will prove Bigfoot is a real animal but a body dead or alive. No picture, Film, Foot prints, Body cast, Hair DNA, feces or anything else that has already been found will even prove a thing. If Bigfoot is to be proved as real it will take a body plain and simple.

Take the giant squid for example. Still today they have not got their hands on a live one. They have not seen them swimming in the wild, They have not taken pictures or film of a live one. But they are called a real animal now because they have gotten dead bodies of them washed up on shore and caught in nets (some have said they was alive when caught in net but died on the way up)

Now the same can be said for Bigfoot. They can be proved real by a body without any film or anything else. But nothing but a body will ever prove a thing.

[Wildman]

...Is there any reason why such evidence should not be able to establish the existence of Sasquatch??...

Dermal evidence has been used for over 100 years to convict people of capital crimes.

If it isn't enough evidence to establish the existence of sasquatch, then why should it be used to sentence people to death?

Because we have criminals to match the fingerprints to.

[Wildman]

Dermal ridge evidence has been cast into doubt by Matt Crowley's research into dermal ridges and casting artifacts.

A great, great bit of research there!

[Yetifan]

Wildman wrote:

There would have to be more to go on than just one man's opinion, regardless of his qualifications. A peer-review would be a step in the right direction, however there are very few, if any, with the education and experience in non-human primate dermal ridge analysis that Chilcutt has. All possibilities of a hoax have to be ruled out, and without peer-review, all we have is Chilcutt's word. That isn't good enough.

Indeed, sir, indeed. Well put.

[Huntster]

...Take the giant squid for example. Still today they have not got their hands on a live one. They have not seen them swimming in the wild, They have not taken pictures or film of a live one. But they are called a real animal now because they have gotten dead bodies of them washed up on shore...

Yet the stories from mariners and fishermen about these creatures have been there for centuries.

Imagine that.

Some folks just chose to ignore them and wait for confirmation from somebody else. A scientist, I suppose.

BTW, who finally confirmed the existence of the giant squid? Since most humans still haven't seen one for themself (dead or alive), they must now believe someone?

Who was that confirming individual, group, or commission?

[Huntster]

...Is there any reason why such evidence should not be able to establish the existence of Sasquatch??...

Dermal evidence has been used for over 100 years to convict people of capital crimes.

If it isn't enough evidence to establish the existence of sasquatch, then why should it be used to sentence people to death?

Because we have criminals to match the fingerprints to.

So since this dermal evidence doesn't match any known animal, isn't it logical to conclude that an unknown animal with a footprint shaped like a human's but much larger is out there?

[Huntster]

...If Bigfoot is to be proved as real it will take a body plain and simple.

Take the giant squid for example. Still today they have not got their hands on a live one. They have not seen them swimming in the wild, They have not taken pictures or film of a live one. But they are called a real animal now because they have gotten dead bodies of them washed up on shore and caught in nets...

A dead one "proves" their existence?

Then what has been going on with giant squids from 1639 to 1867 (228 years)?:

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bz050/HomePage.usasquid.html

...After centuries of myths and tantalizing tales of sightings, science still knows very little about these super-jumbo calamari, except what can be gleaned from the carcasses of about 100 beached squid dating back to 1639...

Apparently, a carcass still doesn't "prove" anything. It appears to depend on who sees the carcass. Even then, others apparently have no obligation to "believe" them:

http://www.atchisondailyglobe.com/main.asp...6&SubSectionID=

...Mr. Ellis said humans first started to realize there was a giant squid in 1867 when some fishermen brought back the tail of the creature. There was however a group of people who have always known the animal has existed - sperm whalers. He said the giant squids are part of the diet of sperm whales and that sailors would see the tentacles of the giant squid wrapped around the whales, as the sperm whale would dine on it...

I'm still waiting for someone to inform me on who we should "believe". If Krantz and others do not have the "authority" to pronounce that there are sasquatches running around out there, I wonder who does?

[ilex]

So since this dermal evidence doesn't match any known animal, isn't it logical to conclude that an unknown animal with a footprint shaped like a human's but much larger is out there?

My Sentiments exactly. Who cares if the critter can be id'd with a known species. Just seems to establish without a reasonable doubt that a large unknown bipedal primate exists. :doh:

[Wildman]

...Is there any reason why such evidence should not be able to establish the existence of Sasquatch??...

Dermal evidence has been used for over 100 years to convict people of capital crimes.

If it isn't enough evidence to establish the existence of sasquatch, then why should it be used to sentence people to death?

Because we have criminals to match the fingerprints to.

So since this dermal evidence doesn't match any known animal, isn't it logical to conclude that an unknown animal with a footprint shaped like a human's but much larger is out there?

Only if you can absolutely, positively rule out a fake or misinterpretation.

[Guy]

Yet the stories from mariners and fishermen about these creatures have been there for centuries.

Imagine that.

Some folks just chose to ignore them and wait for confirmation from somebody else. A scientist, I suppose.

BTW, who finally confirmed the existence of the giant squid? Since most humans still haven't seen one for themself (dead or alive), they must now believe someone?

Who was that confirming individual, group, or commission?

I could be wrong, but I believe the first physical evidence for giant squid was acquired by one Rev. Moses Harvey, an amateur naturalist in northeast Canada, Newfoundland, I believe. Late 19th century. He got a length of tentacle from three local fisherman who had gone out in a small boat. They saw something floating that they couldn't identify, some large, shapeless mass, so they tried to haul it closer by sinking a hook into it. "It" promptly shot out two tentacles and grabbed the boat and began to submerge. One of the fisherman (some accounts say it was a 12 year old boy) seized a hatchet and cut off a tentacle, whereupon the creature released the boat and took off. The men rowed ashore and brought their find to the nearest "scientist," Rev. Harvey.

Sailors have long had stories of mermaids, too. Stories offer possibilities, not proof.

[Wildman]

I'm still waiting for someone to inform me on who we should "believe". If Krantz and others do not have the "authority" to pronounce that there are sasquatches running around out there, I wonder who does?

I'm of the opinion that when it it concerns Sasquatch, you shouldn't "believe" anything unless it is right in front of your eyes.

This post has been edited by Wildman: Jun 27 2005, 04:40 PM

[rockinkt]

Sailors have long had stories of mermaids, too. Stories offer possibilities, not proof.

[ilex]

Dermal ridge evidence has been cast into doubt by Matt Crowley's research into dermal ridges and casting artifacts.

Oh, if only i'd read that thread. Never would've started this thread. :doh: :doh:

Excellent answer and excellent study by Matt!!!

Wayne

[RogerKni]

In that post Matt makes clear that he was excluding certain casts from his analysis:

My scope of investigation has been limited to ONE cast which was made under rather extraordinary conditions. Various other casts such as Paul Freeman's "Wrinkle Foot" or the Elkins cast made in Georgia were made in mud. My tests suggest that this ridge artifact process does not occur in mud. Various other casts are claimed to exhibit dermal ridges. Of those I have no first hand knowledge or opinion, as I have not seen the casts nor do I have any knowledge of the soil conditions under which they were made.

I spoke to Matt July 1 at the monthly Weird Science Meeting (evening of first Friday of every month) at the Seattle Museum of Mysteries (623 Broadway E, between Roy & Mercer Sts.). He emphasized that the process he has discovered seems (so far anyway) to require dry, fine soil (e.g., volcanic pumice) that can "wick" the moisture out of the wet plaster and create the slumping that looks like longitudinal dermal ridges. (Matt, if I've mis-stated that, please correct me.)

There are only six casts that exhibit these longitudinal dermal ridges. These should have been distinguished by a special name from ordinary dermal ridges, such as toe prints and foot creases, which I gather are found on over a dozen footprint casts. The patterns in some of those are quite non-human. E.g., see Meet the Sasquatch, pp. 140 & 142.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jul 4 2005, 10:34 AM

[tube]

There are only six casts that exhibit these longitudinal dermal ridges.

Well Roger, I think there are only six casts that are claimed to contain dermal ridges. As much as I have tried to learn all I can about the subject, there are certain fundamental questions that I have yet to solidly understand. I think that the six casts that are claimed to contain Sasquatch dermal ridges are:

1. Onion Mountain, cast by John Green on Onion Mountain California August 1967. This is the cast I have been investigating. Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion which I am presently trying to clear up about the identity of this cast, whether it is the "Onion Mountain" or the "Blue Creek Mountain" cast. I sure hope Chilcutt and I are studying the same cast!

2. "Wrinkle Foot", A cast made from a track found by Paul Freeman in the early 1980's in Washington state. The track was made in mud, I'm told by Dr. Meldrum and Owen Caddy.

3. Elkins Creek Georgia. This too was in mud, I'm told.

4. Hyampon California (?) I'm unclear about this one. Made way back in the early 1960's by Bob Titmus in Northern California. Soil conditions, Again unsure. I've seen a photo in one of John Green's early books that could be these tracks which seem to be dry soil but I hesitate to infer from just a photo. I'm not certain this cast is being claimed to contain dermal ridges.

5. and 6. Two other Paul Freeman casts. Again, I'm not sure about this. Soil conditions unknown (at least by me).

I'm currently planning to attend the conference in Jefferson Texas. I'm sure Mr. Chilcutt and I will be discussing casts. I'm hoping, like other people here, to get a clearer understanding of the specifics of all of this.

[tube]

I'm glad I had a chance to double check my facts and post this before someone else "busted" me. Today I reviewed Chris Murphy's book which contains Jeff Meldrum's paper on dermatoglyphics. Meldrum alludes to the Hyampom cast as being made in mud. Murphy includes a photograph that even shows standing water in one of the Hyampom tracks.

What led me to suggest that the Hyampom cast was made in dry soil was a photograph that appears on page 9 of John Green's Encounters With Bigfoot which was a 1980 updating of Year of the Sasquatch originally published in 1970. A different Hyampom track photograph appears in Year of the Sasquatch on page 61. Both photos are in black in white and look to me to be dry soil.

I was not there and I'm certainly not going to make goofy claims about what I perceive in old black and white photographs. I accept Jeff Meldrum's statement that the Hyampom cast which may exhibit Sasquatch dermal ridges was made in mud.

[damndirtyape]

5. and 6. Two other Paul Freeman casts. Again, I'm not sure about this. Soil conditions unknown (at least by me).

These are commonly called the "Elk Wallow" casts. One of which Grover Krantz found dermals and skin pores inbetween the toes. The other cast is pretty identifiable since it stepped and curved the sole of its foot around a very large, rounded rock. Both casts were also made by Paul Freeman in the Walla Walla area. I think only the first one has dermals.

A pretty detailed report of this find was printed in the International Crytozoology journal. If I have time I will reprint it here for you.