What do you see?

I spy dermal ridges.

Q: What are you using to illuminate them?

snow on a knitted beanie hat, with a red light underneath.... ???

gael

A simple laser pointer.

Alright (here's my ignorance showing), how did you manage to get a laser pointer to show on so much area? I've got a couple of laser pointers myself (best cat and dog toys ever invented, IMHO) and they both produce a pinpoint of light.

Did you remove the cap so that the beam was broader or what?

Oh, sorry.

You hold the laser parallel to the surface. Move it around till you see it just grazing the ridge details and snap a picture.

This picture was taken yesterday at a track find site, in broad daylight with cupped hands around the track. It is a contingency cast. A quick cast to see if adjustments need to be made in the track casting medium before doing a whole series. It showed us that we were good to go and that we could capture the dermal ridge detail.

The laser pointer is a good tool to have in daylight for things like this. Another use is in looking at or for hair. Shine it around parallel to a surface and the beam will reflect off the small diameter hair and you can then extract it.

Very cool indeed!

Thanks for the tip, DDA. Now I can put that thing to use for something besides getting my pets to chase it all over the house.

Here is a full picture of the cast before it was thourghly cleaned. The soil conditions were pretty good in holding onto this type of surface detail.

looks like a fingerprint or foot print or handprint or, you know, those swirly lines.

[edit] Ok I read through the other posts. I should have said dermal ridges but the darn word escaped me at the moment. (swirly lines, yeah I r edumakated)

OH!

Yeah, dermal ridges.....heh heh.....yeah.......

I just noticed that you were married......

But then this IS a bigfoot site no?

Love that quote SkunkHunter....

Rick,

great photos. a couple of questions,

1. what do you use to clean up the casts? soft brush? just water?

2. how do you remove the excess plaster/medium from the cast without damage to the cast itself.

Thanks,

Kathy H

Using Hydrocal B-11 you don't have to worry too much about those things. After the cast warms up and starts exotherming, we washed them in a nearby stream to get a majority of the dirt off. Later, at home, I washed them with a toothbrush and water stream from a hose.

Using a face coat first and letting that cure before a backup coat allows the face to get hard quicker and the overall cast be pulled sooner than if you just dump it in. The face coat also won't destroy the finer details such as dermal ridges. We used something new to me for these. A can of compressed air was used to blow out some big pieces of debris. You have to be careful but it seems to work pretty well.

Thanks Rick!

Where do you get your hydrocal around here (Portland/Seattle) area?

Also, how do you remove the "edges" of excess hydrocal from the actual cast?

Appreciate the feedback,

Kathy H.

I would check with a local cement distributor, like Star.

The material around the track can be as important as the track itself. That material needs to be documented. It is the context of the surface the track was made in and needs to remain with the cast.

Where else would I learn how to cast - and clean a cast?

Here is a heavier than usual cast

Thanks Rick, this has been very helpful!

KH

I am a figure sculptor and I mold and cast some of my own sculptures, in silicone rubber molds and resin castings. These materials wil hold amazingly fine detail, even the sightest dermal ridges.. (I am planning on doing to do a 15 inch resin Bigfoot model, next)

That said, I find it amazing that soil will hold such minute detail, as that found in dermal ridges.

I realize this has been reported in tracks for many years, and I've often imagined that even fine soil, still a rather course medium, could only hold such fine detail when under such immense pressure like that applied when an 800 lb. animal steps, or....... could they be hoaxed rather easily?

Are there any known hoaxings of dermal ridges in prints these days? I would think that a *texture stamp* of dermal ridges could be impressed into the print after it was made, rather easily..... I know I make texture stamps out of silicone for my scultures......

?????

I don't know if there have been any confirmed hoaxes of dermal ridges in casts of tracks and handprints...

...but Jimmy Chilcutt said (at the Bigfoot Symposium) something to the affect that he "would be very skeptical of a cast with dermal ridges, if it had been made after 1999!"

Quake I practice cast with regular old plaster (cheap)
and I have casts of goose tracks showing all the detail
of the scales on their feet. These are canadians and
aren't weighing more than 10-15 lbs. Mind you, this was
done in mud, the fine silt layer at the edge of puddles...

Some interesting articles on dermals...

Dermal 1

Dermals 2
(note the 4 law enforcement names at the bottom, move over Jimmy?)

I've read of the technique of casting a human print in latex and then
soaking it in kerosene. This causes the latex to swell to an enormous
size. Theoretically you could use that as a mold to dupe a "bigfoot" for
making tracks. The only problem with that trick now will be the tell-tale
dermals

The trouble with the Kerosene trick is that it has to be done over and over because each application enlarges the latex only so far. Also, the latex used becomes very thin and so requires a plaster backup form or plug to keep the shape otherwise you would start to see a lot of distortion and the latex can become too thin and tear. This would be a very elaborate, time consuming and costly scheme. I would estimate that to make a pair of fake track plugs such as this would cost around $500 for each foot and would not last very long. Latex is very soft and for it to be used in walking on rocks, sticks, glass and other sharp objects would show tell-tale signs in the very next track. You also need to change the direction of the dermals in order for this to work.

There are many more attributes than just dermal ridges that help in the investigation of track finds though:

1. Toe movement from track to track,
2. Side wall and toe mushrooming with texture,
3. Heel to ball width ratio,
4. Ball width to track length ratio,
5. Track depth,
6. Trackway obstacles,
7. Track flatness,
8. Foot damage,
9. Toe declination,
10. Outer foot shape contours,
11. Midtarsal break,
12. Straddle,
13. Stride or step, etc.

Human finger prints have been detected inside of purported Sasquatch tracks. Either they were:

1. Deliberate hoaxes, using ones fingers to built up the inside shape,

2. Contamination, using the fingers again but to actually repair or clean out the track before casting,

3. or they were misidentifications, actually just human tracks.

There is software available that can simulate small patches of dermal ridge flow patterns, in various thicknesses, shapes, endings and directions. Conceivably this could be used to etch a pattern into some type of form. It too would be a complicated scenario in that the small patches would have to be made to fit one another into a meaningful pattern, mush as a jig-saw puzzle does.

I am including a picture of the same dermals from the first posted picture in this thread but instead of them being in plaster, they are in dirt. I agree though, it doesn't seem possible that such coarse material like most natural soils are, could retain such fine detail, but they do.

Until someone can demonstrate the making of some device that would account for all of the above characteristics we must assume one or more of the following:

1. All of the purported Sasquatch tracks found are nothing but misidentified known animal tracks that have been distorted enough through some process as to render them different enough to question their origin as known.

2. Either there is a conspiracy to fake tracks in the dimensions found as purported Sasquatch tracks or it is a very common activity within the human population to try and devise a method to produce them individually between generations.

3. There are humans within the population that have the proper foot size, shape and the behavior to walk in areas where tracks would be made.

4. There is an as yet discovered or identified entity that can leave footprints in the shape and size of those purported to be that of Sasquatch.

So far we have absolutely no corroborating evidence for scenarios 1 through 3. Number four is corroborated with anecdotal evidence of eyewitness testimony and the Patterson Gimlin film. In a court of law I would think the evidence would convict Patty or one of her kin.

I'm curious if there's any worth to this casting tip, suggested by M. Jay in Track Record #20, p. 8:

The only reason to use hair spray or aerosol lacquer is to set into place those fine details such as is found in dust that can blow away. I would not use talc in snow. The proper method is to put Potassium sulfate in the plaster mixing water to lower it's freezing point and then to use spray wax on the track to seal it from pouring the plaster mix through.

You do not want any wicking action to take place. This can produce misleading surface detail artifacts.

Now, THIS thread gets my vote for thread of the month....
This is the good stuff.

OK, here are two more casting tips I'm curious about:

Rob posted a set of casting tips on here once upon a time...

Oh yeah, here it is...

Rob's casting tips

Dental stone or tool stone is a very fine product and will pick up a lot of detail, more so than say Fixall. Plaster of Paris is a fine grained material also but it is soft where as dental stone is very brittle, almost to the point of being crystallized. Dental stone doesn't heat up or have a thermal coefficient (expand or contract) to speak of. The main problems with dental stone is:

1. Will not adhere to any other type of plaster, cannot mix it with other plasters for faster cure times or for softening up the final product.

2. Dental stone cost about $50 per 10lb box.

3. Dental stone takes longer to setup the more you play with it.

4. Dental stone is not readily available.

__________________________________________________

The only material you should use in stiffening up a cast is Aluminum (like the ties sold in bags for cyclone fences). Wood will deteriorate rather rapidly, create air bubbles and promote bacterial growth that will split apart the cast eventually. Steel (like in coat hangers) will rust and do almost the same thing.

The method I use is in two parts. A splash or face coat to about 1/8" dripped or flung off the finger tips to get at those pesky undercuts. After this is almost fully cured, I can lay the wire ties down, bending them to fit, then mix up a much thicker batch of plaster. This backup coat is so thick that you can easily shape it with your hands and so you don't really need a border form. This two part casting also speeds up the curing/pull time. I also opt for using Hydrocal B-11, sold in 50 and 100 lb bags. The 100 lb. bag runs about $20, so is much cheaper than other products out there. It is a very fine casting material and can pick up surface resolution in the 0.001"- almost 100x that needed to pick up dermals in humans - 300x for the dermals of Sasquatch, according to the experts.

Forgot to expand on the backup coat. It needs to be wet enough to adhere to the face coat. You can tell if it is a good mix when placing the backup coat onto the face and it flows and the mositure doesn't wick into the face.

Really excellent info, DDA!

I saw this show oncec on court tv and thay used sulphur for snow tracks. They showed every detail in the sneaker. It looked like an exact replica.

Awesome Law Enforcement techniques here. Even on how to do underwater casts.

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/19-20/Ch8.htm

Sulpher is used by my partner sometimes. He say's it is soft material and requires some addictional equipment. The sulpher has to be heated at the casting site for use. The maeterial cannot withstand too much abuse afterwards. The main reason to use this technique is in snow or ice conditions. I have never used the process so could not even tell you if it smells real bad or not.

Not a very big track (look at the debris) but of a classic shape. All of these were found two weeks ago at a lake.

I am estimating this track to be at least 4 weeks old with a 2-3 week very hot/dry period first and a very wet final 1 week prior to the time of picture taking. That ground must have been baked hard and for that track, as well as others, to have pressed so deeply and with such clarity tells us something of the maker, other than it was barefooted.

Size sure relative to Human... Shape can change after rainfall and heat... what criteria are you using or what makes you believe this is not just a human track found around the lake DDA?

Robert

Right now I have no opinion as to if they are nothing more than distorted human tracks or that of Sasquatch. I have questions as to their CONTEXT (walking on broken glass, sharp sticks, rocks, deep mud in some places, metal debris, etc.), LOCATION (at the edge of a restricted watershed, the furthest point on the lake from human activity, past history of track finds and sightings, etc.), ATTRIBUTES (dermal ridge flow pattern, direction and thickness, deformities, flat foot, MT, shape and contour, size ratios, etc.).

All I do is try and document things and make observations. I don't think I have ever seen a Sasquatch so I am pretty far removed from being some one who can judge what is what.

I know this seems impossible but that rock is embedded very deep and that is a bare footprint on either side of it. Found several tracks like this.

Appreciate the additional field tech & methods for the track documentation R

Any ideas how something like that happens?

I read somewhere that the sole of a BF's foot is at least twice as thick as ours, and perhaps I also read that it was spongier (or maybe I just inferred that). Hopefully someone more on top of the literature can weigh in on this.

Yeah, but that doesn't look to me like a print made around a rock, it looks like one made in spite of the rock...

Cue creepy music. Mr. Beckjord, you're on.

I think it is looks like the foot print was made before the rock was even there, as the foot impression is deeply imprinted, even all the way up next to the rock, and all around the circumference of it. And the depth of the impression, even right next to it, is not dimished, except where the dirt was forced up from the rock in a *wave*. I don't think even a very pliable foot *fat pad* would be ~ that~ pliable.

Aside from that, I think the shape looks too much like a shoe, though.

That is my take on it.. I hope an honest opinion is not offending.....

No offense taken Quake.

The track with the rock in it was only one of several that were found. All were definitely barefoot, even though this picture does not do justice to the toe marks on the far side of the rock.

To me this is all about context. Now we all know that if these animals are real then they have to have juveniles and they most likely are quite a bit smaller than the larger or more adult ones. These juveniles would also have smaller feet, so goes the reasoning. The trick is how to determine the difference between a juvenile Sasquatch track and a juvenile to adult human barefoot track. Do we know that the foot shape stays the same through-out the life cycle of a Sasquatch? No. Do we know that they are not born with an appreciable arch? No. Do we know that 3, 4 and 5 inch barefoot tracks of a human normally relate to a juvenile age? Yes. Do we know that the smaller the barefooted human the younger they are and thus more dependant on parental supervision? Yes. Do we know that juvenile humans of the earliest age are normally kept a safe distance from dangerous water, sharp objects and long distances away from adult supervision? Yes.

Length is not everything.

To me that labels these tracks as kind of unusual.

I agree, in that length, in no way, determines validity. If it were to, that would mean that they had to be born with 17 inch feet!


On another note, I know that Krantz had two discerning factors to help him validate real tracks from fakes that he never published or made public, so the *fakeres* would not learn them, and then know how to duplicate these two discerning triats... I guess he never did publish them...and I can certianly see why...


I know I must sound like an idoit, seeing as my only input is what I've read from others, books, and documentaries, and nothing I've learned on my own. That sounds like a real *creme puff*who sits on the couch all day, I know! Sad, isn't it? If I did live where I could study these signs, first hand, I would certianly spend more time than I should, doing just that. Our local *Big Muddy Monster* has been long gone for over a decade...Doh!!! As I learned in business classes........Location, location, location!!!!)

No worries Quake..I don't think anyone in the BF world today..With the possible exception of John Green and maybe Peter Byrne...hasnt done so with out the work and dedication of others to go on.

More info on this find here: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3275

Closing this one down...