Speaker 1: Today, I want to tell you about a journey that
Speaker 1: I've been on for most of my life. Ever since
Speaker 1: I was a kid, I've heard tales of bigfoot and
Speaker 1: wild men while spending time with my friends and family.
Speaker 1: As I grew older and read more about the paranormal,
Speaker 1: my interest in encryptids and other things strange only deepened.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm so excited to share with you what
Speaker 1: I've personally become involved with the Untold Radio Network. The
Speaker 1: Untold Radio Network is a live streaming podcast network that
Speaker 1: airs a new show every day across all podcast platforms, YouTube,
Speaker 1: and more. They have eight different shows on all sorts
Speaker 1: of exciting topics such as bigfoot, cryptids, UFOs, aliens, and
Speaker 1: much more. I even have my own show called Weird Encounters,
Speaker 1: where I talk about all things strange. This is more
Speaker 1: than just a podcast network. It's a community that allows
Speaker 1: me to meet so many amazing people who share their
Speaker 1: stories and experiences with strange. If you're interested in hearing
Speaker 1: more of these stories and learning more about the paranormal
Speaker 1: and encryptids, make sure you check out the Untold Radio
Speaker 1: Network for all kinds of exciting shows. It's free to subscribe.
Speaker 1: So what are you waiting for visit www dot untold
Speaker 1: radionetwork dot com today.
Speaker 2: Now, what are your reporting? I got a screen going
Speaker 2: on here. Something just kid with my dog, something to
Speaker 2: kill your dog? My dog. We're flying through there, over
Speaker 2: the tree. I don't know how it did it. Okay, damn,
Speaker 2: I'm really confused. All I saw was my dog coming
Speaker 2: over the fence and name was dead once you hit
Speaker 2: the grill. I didn't see any cars. All I saw
Speaker 2: was my dog coming over the fence. Sat, what are
Speaker 2: you reporting? We got some wonder or something crawling around
Speaker 2: out here? Did you see what it was? It was
Speaker 2: enough here. Look, I'm new to window now and I
Speaker 2: don't need anything. I don't want to go outside. Its fight. Hello,
Speaker 2: hit the buddy out here. Footquot on out there? It's
Speaker 2: thought of a bench about six foot nine. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Easy ann out there. Yeah, I'm working right heady.
Speaker 1: As most of you know. I've cast footprints here on
Speaker 1: the property in the past, and frankly, the set that
Speaker 1: I cast here on the property back in October of
Speaker 1: last year single handedly convinced me that there is sasquatch
Speaker 1: activity in the area. Footprint evidence, in general is some
Speaker 1: of the most compelling evidence that I feel points to
Speaker 1: the existence of a large bipedal hominoid of some sort
Speaker 1: here in North America. But the validity of such tracks
Speaker 1: and cast of those tracks has always been a bone
Speaker 1: of contention for most people in the bigfoot community. I
Speaker 1: want to talk about three sets of footprints in particular
Speaker 1: from June of nineteen eighty two in southeastern Washington State.
Speaker 1: I decided to talk about these in particular because of
Speaker 1: the prints themselves, as well as what appeared to be
Speaker 1: dramatoglyphics or dermal ridges that were captured in the prints themselves.
Speaker 1: In the interest of not wanting to reinvent the wheel here,
Speaker 1: I did some research and I found a phenomenal article
Speaker 1: written by friend of the show, Darryl Collier, back in
Speaker 1: December of two thousand and seven. This and many other
Speaker 1: articles on the subject are right there for you to
Speaker 1: read on woodape dot org. There's a button right here
Speaker 1: in the show notes. All you have to do is
Speaker 1: click it. It'll take you right over to the website
Speaker 1: and you can read this article in its entirety, as
Speaker 1: well as all the other amazing resources they have on
Speaker 1: this site. That said, I would like to read it
Speaker 1: for you right now. Casts of three large human like
Speaker 1: footprints were made by US four Service personnel in June
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty two in southeastern Washington State. The fine grain
Speaker 1: soil preserved many impressions of dermal ridges and sweat pores.
Speaker 1: Careful stuff by dramaticglyphics. Experts show these impressions are perfectly
Speaker 1: consistent with the friction skin found only in higher primates.
Speaker 1: The foot size of thirty seven point five by seventeen
Speaker 1: centimeters rules out any known primate. The non opposed first
Speaker 1: digit indicates a hominid. Physical circumstances suggest a weight of
Speaker 1: three hundred to four hundred kilograms. It is believed that
Speaker 1: all possible methods of fakingness evidence have been considered and
Speaker 1: ruled out. New animal species become generally accepted when a
Speaker 1: physical specimen is collected and properly described. Most commonly living
Speaker 1: species are initially demonstrated by the skin and skull of
Speaker 1: one individual. Extinct species are based on fossilized bone or shelle,
Speaker 1: often on rather small fragments. Some are proposed even on
Speaker 1: the basis of such indirect evidence, such as burrows or tracts.
Speaker 1: In all cases, something tangible is required, which is deposited
Speaker 1: in a collection somewhere and which can be examined later
Speaker 1: by persons other than the discoverer. Only in the case
Speaker 1: of relatively unimportant subspecies might acceptance be based only on
Speaker 1: unsubstantiated observations by qualified authorities. There are no clear rules
Speaker 1: about the kind and amount of evidence that must be
Speaker 1: provided in each case. Instead, there is an unstated consensus
Speaker 1: that evidence depends on the nature of the animal, or
Speaker 1: more properly, on our emotional reactions to it. The more
Speaker 1: unlikely or unexpected the species, the more proof is required
Speaker 1: to establish its existence. A new subspecies of chipmunk might
Speaker 1: seriously be considered on the eyewitness testimony of one competent zoologist,
Speaker 1: but if the giraffe were unknown to science, five expert
Speaker 1: accounts supported by photographs and footprints would hardly suffice. Similarly,
Speaker 1: the first platypus skin brought to Europe was suspected of
Speaker 1: being faked. There have been persistent reports for over a
Speaker 1: century that a species of large bipedal higher primate known
Speaker 1: as sasquatch or bigfoot lives wild in North America and
Speaker 1: other areas as well. Quite rightly, zoologists and anthropologists have
Speaker 1: not accepted this animal on the testimony of claimed eye witnesses,
Speaker 1: however many they may be. The supposed species is too unexpected,
Speaker 1: as well as potentially too significant base any firm conclusions
Speaker 1: on unverified accounts. If we accepted every creature that is
Speaker 1: supported by the testimony of ten or more claimed sightings,
Speaker 1: then we would truly have an unwieldy zoological inventory of
Speaker 1: mostly unclassifiable creatures, including unicorns, goblins, griffins, fairies, mothmen, and
Speaker 1: the like. Most scientists would agree that only good skeletal
Speaker 1: evidence would establish the reality of a species like the sasquatch.
Speaker 1: A few specialists would be satisfied with such esoteric evidence
Speaker 1: as a test tube full of bloe. Likewise, a few
Speaker 1: specialists would be convinced by anatomically clear footprints recorded under
Speaker 1: satisfactory circumstances. If we were simply dealing with an oversized
Speaker 1: subspecies of an accepted animal, such footprints would probably gain
Speaker 1: general acceptance. As it is, However, we should not be
Speaker 1: surprised if the best of all possible footprint impressions of
Speaker 1: a sasquatch were ignored or denied by most of the
Speaker 1: scientific establishment. That is, exactly what we are confronted with.
Speaker 1: On June tenth, nineteen eighty two, US Forest Service patrolman
Speaker 1: Paul Freeman was surveying Elk in the Yumatilla National Forest
Speaker 1: on the border of Washington and Oregon States. That morning,
Speaker 1: he reported seeing at relatively close range an animal of
Speaker 1: human shape, hair covered, standing about two point five meters tall,
Speaker 1: with an estimated weight of over four hundred kilograms. This
Speaker 1: event is typical of hundreds of descriptions of encounters with
Speaker 1: a supposed but unverified sasquatch. Other Forest Service personnel from
Speaker 1: the Walla Walla Ranger District Office in Walla Walla, Washington
Speaker 1: were called to the scene that day, and they observed
Speaker 1: many apparent footprints that were consistent with an animal of
Speaker 1: that description. Many photographs were taken and a plaster cast
Speaker 1: was made of one of these impressions. The following day,
Speaker 1: a search and rescue team on an unrelated mission came
Speaker 1: upon the scene, took more photographs, made another cast, and
Speaker 1: attempted to track the creature. One week later, on June seventeenth,
Speaker 1: Freeman and other foresters encountered more footprints a few miles
Speaker 1: away at a place called Elk Wallow, this time of
Speaker 1: two individuals. One of these sets of tracks matched the
Speaker 1: tracks at the sighting location, and a third cast was made.
Speaker 1: The second individual left slightly different tracks, and three casts
Speaker 1: were made of these. The analysis in this article centers
Speaker 1: on these three new tracks from Elk Wallow and the
Speaker 1: Mill Creek Watershed. During the following winter, Freemen and other
Speaker 1: investigators found additional tracks. On several occasions they made more
Speaker 1: plaster cast, indicating the existence of at least two more individuals.
Speaker 1: In all, eleven casts of four distinguishable types have been made.
Speaker 1: Five of these casts were made by the Forest Service
Speaker 1: workers in June of nineteen eighty two, and the originals
Speaker 1: are still in my possession pending their ultimate disposition. One
Speaker 1: made by Art Snow of the Search and Rescue team
Speaker 1: and five more made by Paul Freeman himself have been
Speaker 1: copied with latex or selastic molds and returned to their owners.
Speaker 1: The study is not concerned with the truth or accuracy
Speaker 1: of Freeman's claim sighting. It is also not concerned with
Speaker 1: the full range of tracks and the differences between them,
Speaker 1: nor do I stress the physical circumstances of the supposed
Speaker 1: Sasquatch trails themselves convincing as they may be. Instead, the
Speaker 1: emphasis here is on the morphology of the three elk
Speaker 1: Wallow track casts, which showed the greatest detail, especially in
Speaker 1: terms of the pattern of dermal ridges that was observed
Speaker 1: in the actual tracks and that has been preserved in
Speaker 1: parts of the plaster casts. The prevailing soil type in
Speaker 1: this region is wind blown lowess, a very fine grain
Speaker 1: substance with typical particle sizes of around zero point zero
Speaker 1: one millimeters in diameter. When this soil is damp and
Speaker 1: cool and pressed into by a warm body, a detailed
Speaker 1: imprint commonly remains. Most, if not all, of these tracks
Speaker 1: were cast within the day of the time of the impression,
Speaker 1: so they are not dried out, nor had they received
Speaker 1: any intrusive material. The well mixed casting plaster that was
Speaker 1: poured into these impressions was able to record any degree
Speaker 1: of detail that was held by the soil. Variations down
Speaker 1: to less than point one millimeter are faithfully preserved. This
Speaker 1: is fine enough to show the individual dermal ridges and
Speaker 1: their sweat pores. While the above described circumstances seem perfectly
Speaker 1: reasonable in hindsight, I was initially unconvinced that such detail
Speaker 1: could transfer from skin to dirt to plaster. A simple
Speaker 1: test demonstrated its feasibility. The top soil on my property
Speaker 1: in Pullman, Washington is of similar loess. I experimentally depressed
Speaker 1: my own thumb into a piece of the top soil
Speaker 1: and made a plaster cast of the impression. It faithfully
Speaker 1: recorded the dermal ridges and some of the sweat pores
Speaker 1: of my skin. I have since found out through discussions
Speaker 1: with police officials that footprint patterns in dirt are actually
Speaker 1: used for criminal identification in India and New Zealand. A
Speaker 1: US Border Patrol tracker who was called in by the
Speaker 1: Force Service to help in the Walla Walla investigation declared
Speaker 1: the tracks to be fakes because of the presence of
Speaker 1: these dermal ridges. He pointed out that of all North
Speaker 1: American mammals, only humans have fully developed friction skin on
Speaker 1: the soles of their feet. He did not allow for
Speaker 1: the possibility of the track maker being another higher primate,
Speaker 1: all of which have the same kind of friction skin
Speaker 1: with virtually identical dermal res. Illustrating these tracks proved to
Speaker 1: be a difficult problem. Photographing an entire cast for general
Speaker 1: shape was simple enough, but the detail was another matter.
Speaker 1: Given the significance of these fine lines and the controversy
Speaker 1: over their source, it was obvious that these drawings would
Speaker 1: not be satisfactory. Some objective method was needed to transfer
Speaker 1: the pattern of ridges directly into black and white images
Speaker 1: for publication. Attempts at inking and rolling were not successful
Speaker 1: on cast copies, and it was decided not to try
Speaker 1: inking any of the originals. Fingerprint dust, commonly used by
Speaker 1: fingerprint specialists, and tape removal also worked well only on
Speaker 1: small areas at a time. On cast copies. The relief
Speaker 1: of these ridges is generally under point two millimeters, so
Speaker 1: they are best seen on the cast with only oblique
Speaker 1: lighting that throws the furrows into shadow. A number of
Speaker 1: close up photographs of small areas were made with this method.
Speaker 1: These are shown here with their locations on the full
Speaker 1: cares clearly indicated. Some of these photographs have already been published.
Speaker 1: This method of illustration is limited because of the curved
Speaker 1: surfaces of a rigid structure. Beyond a small area, details
Speaker 1: are either thrown into shadow or else they are lost
Speaker 1: when the light enters all depressions. In overall morphology, these
Speaker 1: prints resemble human feet considerably expanded. Individual footprints vary in
Speaker 1: size due to differences in depth of imprinting, motions of
Speaker 1: the foot in stepping, and apparently from flexibility of the
Speaker 1: padding and the soul. The primary individual under consideration here
Speaker 1: left imprints thirty seven to thirty eight centimeters long, ten
Speaker 1: centimeters wide at the heel, and seventeen centimeters wide at
Speaker 1: maximum on their forefoot. Edward Palmer of the Sheriff's Department
Speaker 1: at Laramie County, Wyoming, contacted major shoe manufacturers about human
Speaker 1: feet of the size. John Robinson of Nike Shoes informed
Speaker 1: him that an extraordinary human could have a foot of
Speaker 1: this length, but not of this breadth. The same conclusion
Speaker 1: is evident in data from red Wing shoes. Palma was
Speaker 1: able to trace the dermal ridge patterns across the ball
Speaker 1: and interdigital areas of one cast without break, thus showing
Speaker 1: that the cast adequately represented the breadth of the foot.
Speaker 1: This fact alone appears to rule out a human foot
Speaker 1: being involved. The accomplishments of stride length, slope climbing, and
Speaker 1: depth of impression also rule out a human. This would
Speaker 1: be especially true of any really giant humans who are
Speaker 1: far less adept at moving themselves around than normally sized persons.
Speaker 1: The imprints indicate that there was no longitudinal arch in
Speaker 1: the foot. This would be expected for a biped of
Speaker 1: this size, where the strengths of supporting structures do not
Speaker 1: keep up with their body weight. In addition, there is
Speaker 1: no reason to believe that the ankle is set relatively
Speaker 1: farther forward on the foot than in humans. And stay
Speaker 1: tuned for more sasquatch Ota see will be right back
Speaker 1: after that these messages. This observation was supported by Benny
Speaker 1: Kling of the Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy, who was the
Speaker 1: first to examine late lifts from the Prince. He interpreted
Speaker 1: the imprint as showing that disproportionate weight was carried on
Speaker 1: the front of the foot as compared with the human,
Speaker 1: and asked if the creature walked hunched over. My suggestion
Speaker 1: of an anteriorly set ankle struck him as an even
Speaker 1: better explanation for the apparent weight distribution from the thin
Speaker 1: and totally flexible lifts. He also deduced that it had
Speaker 1: collapsed arches. The depths of the imprints were indicative of
Speaker 1: great body weight, but exact figures were difficult to calculate.
Speaker 1: The tracks were impressed much deeper than the investigator's boots
Speaker 1: in despite the fact that they covered over twice the
Speaker 1: area of these boots. At the location of Freeman's alleged siding,
Speaker 1: the Forest Service conducted a test at the urging of
Speaker 1: an individual visiting from Seattle. A piece of metal the
Speaker 1: side in shape of one of the footprints was cut
Speaker 1: and this was placed on the dirt road near a track.
Speaker 1: An ettojack was then put on top of it, and
Speaker 1: this was used to raise the rear end of a
Speaker 1: pickup truck. They found that this metal plate was impressed
Speaker 1: into the ground less than the actual footprints. From this
Speaker 1: fact and the given weight of the half supported truck,
Speaker 1: the Seattle individual concluded the weight of this thing weighed
Speaker 1: four thousand pounds or one nine hundred and fourteen kilograms.
Speaker 1: None of the foresters agreed with this weight, as widely
Speaker 1: quoted in the press, allowing for only one fourth of
Speaker 1: it at most. This excessive weight figure is easily dismissed
Speaker 1: because it is based on gradual pressing of weight into
Speaker 1: the ground in contrast of the impact of striding. A
Speaker 1: simple experiment illustrates this one can walk with long and
Speaker 1: firm strides on fine moist soil, leaving clear footprints, then
Speaker 1: stop and walk slowly back to examine the prints that
Speaker 1: were just made. One may then back off off and
Speaker 1: compare the striding tracks with the walking tracks and see
Speaker 1: that the latter are far less impressed. I have found
Speaker 1: that in most cases even hard stamping in place will
Speaker 1: not match the impressions just previously made in striding. Full
Speaker 1: striding impacts the body weight at some speed entirely on
Speaker 1: the heel area initially and with the slight forward motion
Speaker 1: as well. In leaving the ground. The body weight is
Speaker 1: last impressed on the toe area with the force of
Speaker 1: stepping off, and also with a slight backward motion. Applying
Speaker 1: this knowledge to the tracks in question does not give
Speaker 1: an exact figure of weight, but it moves the reasonable
Speaker 1: estimate back to near Freeman's guests of eight hundred to
Speaker 1: one thousand pounds or about four hundred kilograms. Of course,
Speaker 1: this all refers to the first individual from the sighting
Speaker 1: event on June tenth. The second individual's tracks found on
Speaker 1: June seventeenth were slightly larger and impressed to a similar degree. Thus,
Speaker 1: the tracks that are considered in detail here we are
Speaker 1: quite possibly pressed into the ground with the weight of
Speaker 1: as much as four hundred kilograms. The foot shape is
Speaker 1: essentially human in spite of the large size and flat arch.
Speaker 1: The toes are unusual in being more nearly all the
Speaker 1: same size than in humans. The first digit is the largest,
Speaker 1: but only slightly so. The toes are also arranged nearly
Speaker 1: straight across the front of the foot. This contrasts with
Speaker 1: the more tapered human foot, where the lesser toes are
Speaker 1: progressively much shorter. All these characteristics also apply to other
Speaker 1: wallow walla footprints, as well as to most reported sasquatch tracks.
Speaker 1: The two footprints are especially instructive in respect to differences
Speaker 1: in the depths of toe impression. At the metatarsal ends.
Speaker 1: The full right footprint has a deeply impressed digit one,
Speaker 1: while the short right one, missing a heel, has a
Speaker 1: more deeply impressed digit two. The toes of short right
Speaker 1: are impressed into the substrate on only slightly less than
Speaker 1: the metatarsal ends, but digits two through five of full
Speaker 1: right turns somewhat upward and some of the tips are
Speaker 1: not recorded. This is also evident in digit five of
Speaker 1: the full left, where the arched ridge pattern first taken
Speaker 1: to be the tip of the toe, actually appears to
Speaker 1: be from the meta tarsal pad, and the tip does
Speaker 1: not show at the metatarsal ends. The full right footprint
Speaker 1: has a deeply impressed digit one, while the short right
Speaker 1: one missing the heel, has a more deeply impressed digit two.
Speaker 1: A peculiarity of the full left is the extra pad
Speaker 1: of flesh to the lateral side of the base of
Speaker 1: digit five. Dermal ridges passed directly from digit five onto
Speaker 1: this pad, so it is not a double strike of
Speaker 1: the fifth digit. Since this pad does not appear on
Speaker 1: either of the right tracts, its exact nature is not clear.
Speaker 1: It may result from connective tissues in the sole pad
Speaker 1: that were under a normal tension. Possibly it is an
Speaker 1: insipi bient sixth digit. The short right track shows what
Speaker 1: may be a double strike of a digit, where that
Speaker 1: toe was first pressed against digit three, then glanced off
Speaker 1: of a small stone and into a more normal position.
Speaker 1: A cast of that stone is preserved in the track.
Speaker 1: In order to make such a movement, the digit had
Speaker 1: to shift to the side after it was pressed into
Speaker 1: the ground, rolled over the stone, and press in again.
Speaker 1: The first pressing of digit II against digit three is
Speaker 1: indicated by the set of five V shaped ridges meeting
Speaker 1: in a cleft. This cleft might also be taken as
Speaker 1: a deep scar between the toes, but this would not
Speaker 1: explain the apparent two impressions of digit III. Perhaps the
Speaker 1: most intriguing of these gross characteristics of the prints is
Speaker 1: the large stone impression in the middle of the full right.
Speaker 1: The stone was photographed in the actual track before the
Speaker 1: cast was made. It measures about nine centimeters long by
Speaker 1: seven centimeters wide and stands up into the footprint cast
Speaker 1: to a maximum of two centimeters toward the rear part.
Speaker 1: The footprint maker simply stepped on a large stone and
Speaker 1: pressed it down into the dirt around it on all sides.
Speaker 1: This was not a doable action, hitting on one side
Speaker 1: then twisting over to press down on the other. Such
Speaker 1: a double imprinting would have left corresponding breaks in the
Speaker 1: imprint to the front and rear of the stone, but
Speaker 1: there are none. The significance of this stepped on stone
Speaker 1: is that it shows the sole of the foot had
Speaker 1: a very thick padding and that it was also very flexible.
Speaker 1: Mobility of bone connections cannot account for most of this indentation.
Speaker 1: The deepest part is close enough to the back of
Speaker 1: the foot that only the calcaneous or heel bone is involved.
Speaker 1: It is obvious that the sole pad must have had
Speaker 1: a thickness somewhat greater than the two centimeter depth of
Speaker 1: the stone's indentation. This applies to the osteologically more rigid
Speaker 1: rear part of the foot, and maybe much the case
Speaker 1: in the forefoot, where there is there more moveability between
Speaker 1: the bones. A flexible soule pad is further supported by
Speaker 1: the configuration of the edges of the footprint indentations. These
Speaker 1: are nearly vertical in many areas, and actually overhanged by
Speaker 1: as much as one centimeter in one place. This overhang
Speaker 1: might have been caused by sagging of the surrounding dirt
Speaker 1: after the imprints were made, although personal observation of many
Speaker 1: tracks makes this seem unlikely to me. A rigid structure
Speaker 1: could not have pressed laterally against the walls of these impressions,
Speaker 1: then withdrawn medially and removal. A flexible foot, especially one
Speaker 1: with a thick sole pad, would make just these movements,
Speaker 1: leaving an impression that can be wider at the bottom
Speaker 1: than it is nearer to the top. Detailed skin impressions
Speaker 1: are visible on some of these vertical and overhanging walls,
Speaker 1: with dermal ridges clearly showing in one case near the
Speaker 1: heel of the full right. These details are directly imprinted
Speaker 1: into the side walls and thus could not have been
Speaker 1: made by a rigid structure with any combination of movements.
Speaker 1: The presumption of a thick soul pad was also indicated
Speaker 1: by four foot print cast from Gray's Harbor County, Washington,
Speaker 1: made earlier in nineteen eighty two by the Gray's Harbor
Speaker 1: Sheriff's Department. These tracks show such identity of detail with
Speaker 1: each other that a single foot was almost surely involved.
Speaker 1: Yet they varied in breadth by as much as a
Speaker 1: centimeter from one print to another. Varying pressure on a thick,
Speaker 1: flexible soul pad was clearly suggested in that case too.
Speaker 1: The logical expectation of such a thick soul pad has
Speaker 1: long been indicated by the apparent ratio between body weight
Speaker 1: and foot structure area. With increasing body size, surfaces increased
Speaker 1: by the square linear dimension, while body volume increases by
Speaker 1: the cube. Thus, the larger hominid puts more weight on
Speaker 1: a given area of soul than does a smaller one.
Speaker 1: The reported unusually heavy set Sasquatch bodies only add to
Speaker 1: the problem. A typical man one hundred and seventy centimeters
Speaker 1: tall will have a foot twenty six centimeters long. His
Speaker 1: sixty five kilogram body weight will be distributed over two
Speaker 1: hundred square centimeters of one foot, or about point three
Speaker 1: two five kilograms per square centimeter. Our reconstructed sasquatch two
Speaker 1: point four to two point five meters tall has a
Speaker 1: foot thirty seven point five centimeters long. Its four hundred
Speaker 1: kilogram body weight is distributed over four hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: six square centimeters of one foot, or about point eight
Speaker 1: two two kilograms per square centimeter. The above figure assumes
Speaker 1: the same ratio of stature to foot length in the
Speaker 1: human and the sasquatch. Evidence on this point is mixed.
Speaker 1: If we follow the measurements estimated from the Patterson Gimlin
Speaker 1: film of nineteen sixty seven, a thirty seven point five
Speaker 1: centimeter foot indicates a smaller sasquatch with a body weight
Speaker 1: of only about two hundred and fifty kilograms. This would
Speaker 1: putzo point five one four kilograms on each square centimeter
Speaker 1: of the foot still more than half again as much
Speaker 1: weight per unit area of the sole of the foot
Speaker 1: as a normal human. This is probably the minimum possible figure.
Speaker 1: Such a thick sole pad would presumably be made largely
Speaker 1: of fat, but would have to be strongly interlaced with
Speaker 1: and partitioned by connective tissue running in many directions. This
Speaker 1: design would allow for the retention of typical higher primate
Speaker 1: friction skin surface with a minimum of internal restructuring. This conclusion,
Speaker 1: which was based only on a sasquatch footprint, morphology and
Speaker 1: estimated body sizes, is supported by the data on the
Speaker 1: gorilla foot. Raven describes the gorilla soul as follows. The
Speaker 1: subcutaneous connective tissue is very thick and fatty, and similarly
Speaker 1: has a framework of heavy collaginous septa. The fatty pad
Speaker 1: of the sole is everywhere covered by dense connective tissue.
Speaker 1: The fat is than along the middle of the foot,
Speaker 1: but is very thick two point five centimeters under the heel.
Speaker 1: Given that the sasquatch may weigh twice as much as
Speaker 1: the gorilla and is entirely bipedal, it is reasonable to
Speaker 1: expect the same soul structure, but to an exaggerated degree.
Speaker 1: I have already alluded to the dermal ridges and sweat
Speaker 1: pores that characterize friction skin on the palms and soles
Speaker 1: of higher primates and not on other mammals. These ridges
Speaker 1: are clearly evident in the three cast in question. They
Speaker 1: cover most of the toe areas and can be seen
Speaker 1: in scattered parts of the rest of the soul. From
Speaker 1: ridge to ridge, these lines are spaced out half a
Speaker 1: millimeter apart, more in some areas and less than others.
Speaker 1: This kind of spacing is typical for almost all higher primates,
Speaker 1: regardless of the body size. With a primate species, large
Speaker 1: individuals have ridges somewhat farther apart than those in smaller individuals.
Speaker 1: The number of ridges and the fetus is geared to
Speaker 1: the average adult bodies sigei of the species, so those
Speaker 1: individuals that grow to larger sizes have the given number
Speaker 1: of ridges more spread out, and vice versa. Friction skin
Speaker 1: tends to have the optimum density of ridge spacing for
Speaker 1: the best adhesion to smooth objects. The number of lines
Speaker 1: laid down in the fetus varies according to the adult
Speaker 1: size for each species. There is no adjustment for sexual
Speaker 1: size differences. Thus it is not clear where our thirty
Speaker 1: eight centimeter tracks were deposited by a male or a female.
Speaker 1: The near constancy of ridge spacing and primates rules out
Speaker 1: one method of faking latex Molds of real skin soaked
Speaker 1: in kerosene will greatly expand there may also be other
Speaker 1: methods for expanding molds. This procedure could produce gigantic skin
Speaker 1: patterns in some respects, but the ridge spacing would also
Speaker 1: be expanded and thus easily recognizable as abnormal. The dermal
Speaker 1: ridges in these tracks show bifurcations, terminations, and isolated short
Speaker 1: sections in various places. These are the same kinds of
Speaker 1: variations that are seen in human dramatoglyphics, and they occur
Speaker 1: with normal frequencies. If a dormal ridge running across a
Speaker 1: toe is counted as one and a ridge of a
Speaker 1: similar length on the other sole as another, then these
Speaker 1: shrick casts display almost a thousand dermal ridges. Each of
Speaker 1: those that has been carefully observed is a smoothly rounded
Speaker 1: ridge and cross section, and not a scratch or V
Speaker 1: shaped groove as would be produced by engraving. The furls
Speaker 1: are also rounded valleys between the ridges, and they are
Speaker 1: relatively narrow. The spacing between the ridges varies only gradually
Speaker 1: from one location to another, and there are no abrupt
Speaker 1: breaks in the pattern. Density. Ridges can be seen in
Speaker 1: some places well off the soul more than two centimeters
Speaker 1: of the side of the foot. This shows most clearly
Speaker 1: around the outside of the heel of the cast of
Speaker 1: the full right. The greater extension of the friction skin
Speaker 1: up the edge of the foot, as compared with a
Speaker 1: much lesser degree on the hand, is normal in primate
Speaker 1: dramatic glyphics. These ridges are clearest and with the deepest
Speaker 1: relief on those areas that bear the least weight, around
Speaker 1: the edges of the foot itself and around the individual toes.
Speaker 1: In particular, the skin should normally strike the substrate only briefly.
Speaker 1: In these areas. Ridge to furrow depths are at a maximum.
Speaker 1: On the more weight bearing surfaces of the soul and
Speaker 1: the middle of the toepads, the ridges appear to be
Speaker 1: somewhat worn down. This is normal for a primate that
Speaker 1: walks a great deal on hard surfaces. I am told
Speaker 1: by a primatologist who prefers anonymity that only a big
Speaker 1: gorilla living in a concrete floored cage would wear down
Speaker 1: these ridges completely. Interestingly, the footprints at the Freeman site
Speaker 1: location the first individual show no ridges except for a
Speaker 1: few traces around the edges in some places. Perhaps this
Speaker 1: individual had done considerably more walking than the second individual
Speaker 1: being studied here. For more sasquatch Otta see, will be
Speaker 1: right back after these messages. In the early fetal development
Speaker 1: of dermal ridges, each sweatpoor has a tiny cone or
Speaker 1: pebble of skin surrounding it. As the growth progresses, these
Speaker 1: cones line up in a fixed pattern and merge together
Speaker 1: in unbroken ridges. Sometimes this development partially fails, and many
Speaker 1: of the ridges consist of only a jumble of very
Speaker 1: short segments. This condition is known as dysplasia, which tends
Speaker 1: to affect only mostly the central areas of the greatest
Speaker 1: weight support, where the ridges are the most worn down.
Speaker 1: While these two conditions topographically coincide, they should not be
Speaker 1: confused because they have separate origins in morphology. In affected areas,
Speaker 1: the directions of dermal ridge sets can still be made
Speaker 1: out by observing the general trend of orientation of the
Speaker 1: short segments. Our second individual shows this form of dysplasia,
Speaker 1: as it occasionally occurs in humans. The pattern in some
Speaker 1: toe tips and over the fore part of the soul
Speaker 1: is somewhat confused and hard to follow. Nevertheless, the trend
Speaker 1: on this one recorded instance of a mid soul print
Speaker 1: is transversely across the soul. This is the hominid pattern
Speaker 1: as opposed to the podids, where the trend in this
Speaker 1: area is diagonally from anterior medial to posterior lateral. This
Speaker 1: contrast should be used with caution because apes show high variability,
Speaker 1: and some of them approach the human orientation in parts
Speaker 1: of the soul. The first Freeman citing individual soul was
Speaker 1: too torn to determine if it showed dysplasia In at
Speaker 1: least one place, the ridge trend abruptly changes direction with
Speaker 1: no apparent reason. While this is puzzled three examiners, it
Speaker 1: is actually a perfectly normal phenomenon, though rare. This is
Speaker 1: another form of dysplasia or dissociation of dermal ridges, and
Speaker 1: is discussed by Olson in nineteen seventy eight. Even more
Speaker 1: moor extreme examples have been reported in palm prints. In
Speaker 1: one human case, a one centimeter circle patch sharply outlined,
Speaker 1: has its ridges turned ninety degrees from those on the
Speaker 1: surrounding skin. The ridge alignment is slightly broken up on
Speaker 1: some toe tips, but the basic print pattern can still
Speaker 1: be determined. The toe tip patterns are mostly arches, while
Speaker 1: digit I of the full left appears to have a loop.
Speaker 1: On the fingerprints. Arches occur rarely in humans, showing in
Speaker 1: just over ten percent of individuals only among Congo pigmies
Speaker 1: and South African bushmen. On the toes, they occur somewhat
Speaker 1: more frequently, but they're still in the minority. On the
Speaker 1: shafts of the toes, the ridge pattern begins to follow
Speaker 1: the primate norm of running straight across at the basis
Speaker 1: of the toes, which are surprisingly short. New patterns again
Speaker 1: can be seen on the metatarsal pads. None of these
Speaker 1: can be followed through clearly in their entirety, but an
Speaker 1: arching design is the most common in the distal areas
Speaker 1: of these pads. The best cast, the full left, seems
Speaker 1: to show the beginnings of a loop pattern at the
Speaker 1: base of digit two and perhaps on digit one, while
Speaker 1: digit five simply arches. As far as the lines can
Speaker 1: be traced. These are normal patterns for apes or humans.
Speaker 1: In addition to being unusually short for such a foot size.
Speaker 1: The toes show another peculiarity that does not occur in
Speaker 1: primeate feet. They have no flexion creases. Ideally, there should
Speaker 1: be three such creases, each corresponding to one of the
Speaker 1: three felangel joints, but in this case none are visible.
Speaker 1: I do not know how to interpret this absence, except
Speaker 1: to make note of it. It may not be a
Speaker 1: normal sasquatch trait because the toes on this particular individual
Speaker 1: are relatively even shorter than on the other presumed sasquatch footprints.
Speaker 1: The main significance for now may relate to the possibility
Speaker 1: of these tracks being faked with lifts and cast from
Speaker 1: real primate tie skin. How does one locate a group
Speaker 1: of people with arch thumbs of various sizes and uniformly short,
Speaker 1: with none of them showing any flexion creases. While there
Speaker 1: are many pattern breaks with large blank areas on the soles,
Speaker 1: some of the toe prints are continuous from tips to
Speaker 1: the metatarsal pads. No patching is indicated. I could find
Speaker 1: only one case in the literature of a human finger
Speaker 1: without flexion creases. Haylock nineteen eighty three illustrates one Brachydactylus
Speaker 1: individual where a very short digit II lacks creases and
Speaker 1: has a continuous arch pattern from the tip to the
Speaker 1: metacarpal end. Dermal ridges were first suspected on a cast
Speaker 1: of a handprint ascribed to a Sasquatch that was recovered
Speaker 1: in northeastern Washington in nineteen seventy. In this case, parallel
Speaker 1: ridges were evident on the edge of one finger near
Speaker 1: the tip. They were spaced about one millimeters apart, thus
Speaker 1: making their identification as dermal ridges somewhat uncertain. Other footprint
Speaker 1: casts have been sought out and examined since the walla
Speaker 1: Wall of Discovery, but nothing more than suggestive traces could
Speaker 1: be found in a few cases. This is not surprising
Speaker 1: because of the fortunate and rare circumstances in this instance.
Speaker 1: In many places in the specimens considered here, one can
Speaker 1: see small indentations or pores located along the ridges. These
Speaker 1: are typically spaced out about half a millimeter apart and
Speaker 1: are centered on the ridges. They vary in size from
Speaker 1: barely visible to less than point one millimeter up to
Speaker 1: a diameter of point two millimeters. The ridges visibly widen
Speaker 1: around each of these poores. This is most clearly seen
Speaker 1: at the base of digit I of the full left track.
Speaker 1: The margins of these pores curve gradually inwards to the centers.
Speaker 1: There is not a sharp edge. Several forensic specialists who
Speaker 1: have examined this material agree that these are sweat poors.
Speaker 1: The sweat poors are generally lined up regularly on adjacent
Speaker 1: dermal ridges, as opposed to having alternative or random positions.
Speaker 1: In other words, the pores also occur along lines drawn
Speaker 1: perpendicular to the ridges. This pattern is not regular, but
Speaker 1: it is a strong tendency, just as in human dramaticglythics.
Speaker 1: The possibility that air bubbles might have mimicked sweat poors
Speaker 1: was suggested by physical anthropologist Tim White at the University
Speaker 1: of California, Berkeley, who otherwise thought the cast appeared to
Speaker 1: represent legitimate footprints. To settle this point, I made impressions
Speaker 1: of false ridges in similar soil and cast them in plaster.
Speaker 1: I compared the results with the actual cast and found
Speaker 1: that they are in fact occasional air bubbles from casting.
Speaker 1: These bubbles, however, are sharp edged and are not as
Speaker 1: small as the apparent sweat poors. They are rather few
Speaker 1: and not regularly spaced or lined up. In some cases,
Speaker 1: they also bulge out of the ridges around them, but
Speaker 1: only slightly, and with a much thinner wall between the
Speaker 1: hole in the ridge edge than the presumed pores. One
Speaker 1: fingerprint expert with the Vancouver, BC Police Department pointed out
Speaker 1: that sweat poors often have irregular edges, while these poors
Speaker 1: sometimes appear quite circular. This discrepancy results from the method
Speaker 1: of observation. Inked fingerprints used by law enforcement agencies record
Speaker 1: the very outermost edges of the poores, and these are
Speaker 1: usually not quite circular. Photographs of many of these cast
Speaker 1: poors show only shadows thrown deeper into the holes, where
Speaker 1: active sweat pours are in fact perfectly rounded. Others with
Speaker 1: more oblique illumination show the typical irregularities of outline. Thus far,
Speaker 1: every specialist who has examined these casts agree that their
Speaker 1: detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being
Speaker 1: derived from an imprint of primate skin. These now include
Speaker 1: thirty police fingerprint workers, mostly from the Western States, twelve
Speaker 1: of whom who might be considered experts. Also included are
Speaker 1: six physical anthropologists with expertise in this area, as well
Speaker 1: as four pathologists and two zoologists. At present, two of
Speaker 1: the police experts are willing to state categorically that the
Speaker 1: prince actually represent the existence of a real but unknown animal,
Speaker 1: regardless of the implications. Interestingly, these two are not only
Speaker 1: among the most highly qualified, they are also two who
Speaker 1: have studied the material more thoroughly. Even the strongest critic,
Speaker 1: a mammalogist at the Smithsonian Institute, agrees that the cast
Speaker 1: represent primate skin, but he thinks that it must have
Speaker 1: been transferred from known animals by silicone rubber casting and
Speaker 1: combined somehow to form the tracks. His examination of the
Speaker 1: cast was brief. Another strong critic, a leading medical authority
Speaker 1: on skin and the Pacific Northwest, also agreed that the
Speaker 1: impressions were undoubtedly of primate friction skin, but left open
Speaker 1: the question of how they came to be located on
Speaker 1: these tracks. His examination of the cast was somewhat longer.
Speaker 1: Neither of these experts attempted to specify the source of
Speaker 1: the skin that might have been transferred to these tracks.
Speaker 1: In their gross anatomy, these tracks could not have been
Speaker 1: made by any known animal. They are too large to
Speaker 1: be human, and the length and stride and depth of
Speaker 1: the imprinting are also beyond human capability. Human feet do
Speaker 1: not have the flexibility of soul to conform to the
Speaker 1: large stone that was stepped on. In one case. The
Speaker 1: toe design is also above the range of human feet
Speaker 1: in the fact that they are relatively too short toes
Speaker 1: two through five or two wide, and they line up
Speaker 1: too nearly straight across to the front of the foot.
Speaker 1: For all the above reasons, no ape foot comes anywhere
Speaker 1: near matching these casts. In addition, all apes show some
Speaker 1: degree of apposability of the first digit, which is not
Speaker 1: seen in these casts. The lack of a longitudinal arch
Speaker 1: in these feet, interestingly, is not an argument against either
Speaker 1: human or or ape identification. Bear feet can easily be
Speaker 1: eliminated on gross anatomy. Again, these tracks are too large
Speaker 1: for the hind foot of any bear, in which the
Speaker 1: first toe is the shortest and the third toe is
Speaker 1: the longest. Bear tracks also generally show claw marks and
Speaker 1: have especially narrow heels. No other animal feet need seriously
Speaker 1: be considered. There are only two possible explanations to account
Speaker 1: for these footprints short of denying their existence. Either they
Speaker 1: were fabricated somehow by a modern human hoaxer, or else
Speaker 1: they are tracks of a presently unrecognized animal previous studies
Speaker 1: have already dealt with most of the problems that would
Speaker 1: face any potential hoaxer of these tracks, like in terms
Speaker 1: of their physical circumstances, they need only to be listed
Speaker 1: here in this case as reminders. The hoaxer had to
Speaker 1: penetrate a watershed area that is closed to the public
Speaker 1: by the US Forest Apartment. This would have to be
Speaker 1: done without leaving any noticed evavidence of vehicles or human
Speaker 1: footprints into or out of the area. The unlikelihood of
Speaker 1: these tracks being discovered at least suggests that dozens or
Speaker 1: hundreds of sets of these tracks must have been made
Speaker 1: in order to ensure the discovery of at least some
Speaker 1: of them. The long stride, commonly one point two meters,
Speaker 1: is difficult to manage even without big fake feet. Stepping
Speaker 1: once on the heel while coming down a two meter
Speaker 1: embankment should have toppled any hoaxer on his face at
Speaker 1: the bottom. The depth of imprint means that even if
Speaker 1: the hoaxer weighed one hundred and fifty kilograms, he was
Speaker 1: carrying an additional weight of maybe two hundred kilograms and
Speaker 1: still managing long strides. He also managed to walk for
Speaker 1: at least three quarters of a mile with all this equipment.
Speaker 1: That is how far the search and rescue team from
Speaker 1: Oregon was able to backtrack. The first individual accounting for
Speaker 1: the gross morphology of these tracks presents an equally baffling
Speaker 1: set of obstacles. The hypothetical hoaxer somehow knew how to
Speaker 1: make the soul's fly at the toes short and wide,
Speaker 1: with only a modest emphasis on digit one, the forefoot
Speaker 1: almost squared off, and the heel abnormally wide. These would
Speaker 1: not have been too difficult to execute if some of
Speaker 1: my published descriptions of tracks were consulted. But he also
Speaker 1: knew enough to introduce two other variations that I noted
Speaker 1: back in nineteen seventy. These have never been written down
Speaker 1: nor told to anyone. Some innovations added here include the
Speaker 1: apparent double strike of one toe that must have been
Speaker 1: difficult to manage. One cannot help but wondering why the
Speaker 1: extra pad of flesh was included next to digit five
Speaker 1: of the full left track, which looks almost like an
Speaker 1: incipient sixth digit. The deep indentation in mid soul of
Speaker 1: the full right track shows a surprising degree of flexibility
Speaker 1: of the foot and thick cushioning. How the hoax are
Speaker 1: managed to walk on top of these flexible pads is
Speaker 1: another problem, unless he was long accustomed to doing this.
Speaker 1: Earlier descriptions of authentic seeming sasquatch tracks often included the
Speaker 1: double ball. This is seen clearly in the partial left track,
Speaker 1: but for various reasons, it did not show up in
Speaker 1: the other two tracks. Differences in the relative depths of
Speaker 1: imprinting of the metatarsal pads between the tracks require some explanation,
Speaker 1: perhaps separately articulated pseudo bones and faked feet. Also, different
Speaker 1: inclinations of the toes between the two right feet imply
Speaker 1: still more structural complexity in the feet. The hoaxing problems
Speaker 1: recounted up to now strain the imagination. Yet similar circumstances
Speaker 1: have been reported by reliable observers many times in the past,
Speaker 1: for which no good explanation has been forthcoming. The usual
Speaker 1: approach of the debunkers is to simply ignore the situation,
Speaker 1: or to insist that the facts have not been correctly reported.
Speaker 1: When the actual tracks have eroded away and memories have faded,
Speaker 1: all that remain is some big plaster casts. Little argument
Speaker 1: is left in this case. However, the three plaster cast
Speaker 1: show a degree of detailed anatomy that cannot be dismissed
Speaker 1: so easily. The supposed track hoaxer somehow managed to include
Speaker 1: microscopic detail that matches the foot skin of higher primates.
Speaker 1: These are clearly formed dermal ridges with sweat pores over
Speaker 1: large parts of these three imprints. These details are of
Speaker 1: the correct size, shape, and orientation in each area for
Speaker 1: gigantic commonid feet. Some peculiarities include arched toe tip prints
Speaker 1: and very short toes that lack flexion creases. All possible
Speaker 1: sources of primate friction skin have been considered and none
Speaker 1: can account for these characteristics. In addition, the hoaxer had
Speaker 1: the ridge relief slightly worn down in exactly the areas
Speaker 1: where the most weight would be supported on the feet
Speaker 1: of this size and design. Finally, the incomplete pattern formation
Speaker 1: of dysplasia occurs on just the areas where it would
Speaker 1: be normal for feet and toes of this size. Our
Speaker 1: track maker is an excellent outdoorsman of incredible size and strength.
Speaker 1: He is able to move about largely unseen over vast
Speaker 1: wilderness areas, leaving many tracks and stay tuned for more
Speaker 1: sasquatchy ott to see We'll be right back after these messages.
Speaker 1: He does not depend on vehicles to get in and
Speaker 1: out of these areas where these tracks are found. He
Speaker 1: is able to imprint the ground with tracks that are
Speaker 1: anatomically correct for a gigantic combinid, and he is able
Speaker 1: to leave on occasion clear impressions of primate friction skin.
Speaker 1: Such a track maker is not really impossible, just not
Speaker 1: Homo sapiens. After removing any possibility of a human hoaxer,
Speaker 1: we can consider these footprints on face value. Using only
Speaker 1: the three prime foot prints described above, the track maker
Speaker 1: can be reconstructed as follows. The skin makes it a
Speaker 1: high primate without specifying monkey, ape or man. It is
Speaker 1: bipedal and thus with upright posture. The stride indicates a
Speaker 1: stature of almost two and a half meters if it
Speaker 1: has a human body leg ter ratio where stature is
Speaker 1: twice the striding gait. A body weight of about four
Speaker 1: hundred kilograms is consistent with the depth of impressions and
Speaker 1: with the indicated soul cushioning pad. The stature and body
Speaker 1: weight would indicate a body build much more heavy set
Speaker 1: than is usual for humans. The short toes, non diverging
Speaker 1: first digit, and transverse mid soul ridges all indicate a hominid,
Speaker 1: a member of the zoological family homenity that includes humans.
Speaker 1: Granting the hominid status, it would have broad shoulders like
Speaker 1: any exbrachiator. One could also presume from the track locations
Speaker 1: and the lack of communications between them and ourselves that
Speaker 1: they are not human in any cognitive and social meanings
Speaker 1: of the word. The above description is consistent with Paul
Speaker 1: Freeman's sighting report of the animal that started this particular investigation.
Speaker 1: Many hundreds of other people have described seeing essentially the
Speaker 1: same kind of biped All such reports also include reference
Speaker 1: to a full covering of body hair, usually dark brown
Speaker 1: in color. This might be a reasonable expectation for a
Speaker 1: non human higher primate, especially in a temperate climate. Most
Speaker 1: observers say the arms are relatively longer than is usual
Speaker 1: for humans. They are also massive, especially at the shoulders.
Speaker 1: It is often noted that the head is set low,
Speaker 1: with no constriction showing at the neck. The face is
Speaker 1: described as being nearly flat, with a little muzzle projection
Speaker 1: and with deep set eyes under projecting browridges. It has
Speaker 1: a head that rises only gradually behind the brows to
Speaker 1: a low peak towards the rear. These last name traits
Speaker 1: are entirely consistent with the animal described from the footprints.
Speaker 1: It does not automatically follow that our track maker has
Speaker 1: all these additional traits, but it would be a most
Speaker 1: peculiar situation if it did not. That possibility would presuppose
Speaker 1: the existence of a giant hominid that leaves footprints and
Speaker 1: has never been seen, and another species of giant, hairy,
Speaker 1: guerrilla faced hominid that has often been reported, but which
Speaker 1: leaves no footprints. The simplest resolution to this is that
Speaker 1: the footprints and descriptions may be ascribed to the same animal.
Speaker 1: It may seem as though a large edifice has been
Speaker 1: erected on the base of just three footprints that were
Speaker 1: cast in plaster by the US four at Service in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty two. Actually the edifice has been there all along,
Speaker 1: based on many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of footprint events and
Speaker 1: observations accumulating for over a century. The fact that direct,
Speaker 1: substantial proof of the animal has not been produced, combined
Speaker 1: with the fact that a proportion of the evidence has
Speaker 1: been demonstrated to be fault, has led most biological scientists
Speaker 1: to deny the existence of the species. One prominent physical
Speaker 1: anthropologist has told me that if these tracks with the
Speaker 1: first and only evidence available, the animal would likely be accepted,
Speaker 1: but as it is, with so much publicity and fakery
Speaker 1: known and suspected in the past, such acceptance will not occur.
Speaker 1: It has been far easier for most scientists to assume
Speaker 1: that all the evidence is false than it is to
Speaker 1: believe that a giant hominid has eluded verification for this
Speaker 1: longer time. The evidence of these three track casts has
Speaker 1: been presented to many experts in the appropriate fields. The
Speaker 1: reactions of two major groups are significantly different. In the
Speaker 1: fields of physical anthropology and zoology, most of the responses
Speaker 1: have ranged from mild interest to flat denial that they
Speaker 1: could be real. Among fingerprint experts and palaeontologists, the results
Speaker 1: have ranged from mild interest to enthusiastic acceptance. To most
Speaker 1: anthropologists and zoologists, the implications of these tracks, if authentic,
Speaker 1: are profound. It would mean that their sciences have completely
Speaker 1: missed one of the biggest and potentially most important mammalian
Speaker 1: species on Earth. They may even fear that the public
Speaker 1: might ask if they were so wrong in this case,
Speaker 1: what else might they be overlooking? I have heard of
Speaker 1: instances in which scientists have sincerely expressed the hope that
Speaker 1: sasquatch will never be proven exactly because of these implications.
Speaker 1: It has also been suggested that anthropologists are still smarting
Speaker 1: from the expose of the pilt Down hoax, and that
Speaker 1: their public image would be severely damaged by another such instance.
Speaker 1: To them, I need only point out how almost all
Speaker 1: geologists firmly oppose the idea of continental drift. Until the
Speaker 1: late nineteen sixties they survived. Police finger printers and pathologists
Speaker 1: generally have no stake in whether or not such a
Speaker 1: creature exists. It's outside their normal area of conscers, and
Speaker 1: few have made any past pronouncements on the subject. They
Speaker 1: risk no professional embarrassment by its demonstration. If anything, they
Speaker 1: might be more concerned about the possibility that a hoaxer
Speaker 1: has developed a technique that can be used to fake fingerprints.
Speaker 1: The evidence of this new set of tracks should be
Speaker 1: treated as conclusively by all authorities, but it is not.
Speaker 1: If and when a sasquatch skeleton or fresh specimen is recovered,
Speaker 1: it would require little intelligence to conclude that the species
Speaker 1: has existed all along. What does require some reasoning power
Speaker 1: is to move from the presently available data to a
Speaker 1: clear conclusion as to either the method of hoaxing or
Speaker 1: the reality of the animal.
Speaker 2: They say, you don't have a go, but you can't stays.
Speaker 3: Sid steps, still.
Speaker 4: Trying this joy that chid everything call me ride back,
Speaker 4: riding back, joy from me, joy staying right came it
Speaker 4: right away, Still still stays sssst not not not not
Speaker 4: do about.
Speaker 3: Names stssts things used these things