“Most Convincing Evidence of Bigfoot” = Bear?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 25th, 2011

What initially looked very intriguing when displayed at an angle, doesn’t look so interesting when viewed head on.

The image made into a thumbnail photo actually shows the open-mouthed creature’s head, turned to the left from the viewer’s point of view, a bit better:

When viewed head on, the “Bigfoot” facial smudge looks very much like a bear.

Bigfoot Faceprint Photo

Click on image for full size version

Several Cryptomundians are already commenting thusly:

I hate to say it, but the more I see of the photos, the more I think ‘bear’.flame821

I have to agree with flame821 – seeing the other photos in context really makes it seem more likely it was a bear.semillama

Wow, the fourth photo (of the entire window area) looks exactly like a bear face.zpf

Looks like the bear’s muzzle hit straight into the glass, then slid off.zpf

I hate to say it too but yeah…Bear. Bear paw and smudges of Bear’s snout.Dr Kaco

The paws definitely look like bear prints. I will say the “face” print is eerie. But what they think is the bigfoot mouth could easily be a bear’s nose.TimmyRyan65

I think they jumped the gun a little too soon. I would have waited until I got the DNA done before declaring it was bigfoot. Too many critters out in the woods to eliminate. And dang, the entire thing does sound like a bear. Yogi bear was looking for some snacks through the camper’s window and drooled.Redrose999

Over on GhostTheory.com, many of their readers were saying the same thing.

One of their longtime readers, going by the handle elhombre, may have solved the “mystery.”

I just did a quick photoshop debunking of the Fresno BF print, I would’ve posted it to the thread on the main site but i’ll be damned if I can work that out.

Yes I know it’s a polar bear against a window….but it’s a hell of a lot closer to the truth than bigfoot.

many regards, elhombre

Bigfoot Faceprint Debunked

What do the Cryptomundians think?

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

47 Responses to ““Most Convincing Evidence of Bigfoot” = Bear?”

  1. Hambone responds:

    I think maybe a bear. but these people might think a leprechaun touched it also.

  2. Aquabeasties.com Staff responds:

    This is one “Bigfoot!” declaration I don’t understand. These people have no reason to think it’s Bigfoot. They just got back from a hike and looked at some smears that anyone else but Bigfoot hunters would have just assumed were bear marks. Does anyone else understand this?

  3. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    They promised me Sasquatch
    Now YOU say “a bear”
    I very much wish
    That you hadn’t gone there
    By the GODS!–But I wish
    …That you hadn’t said “Bear”
    Because—Dare I say it?
    I really don’t care
    No I don’t give a fig
    For some wandering Bear
    So take it away
    And put Sasquatch there
    Do it eftsoons and quick
    Ere I tear out my hair!!!

  4. SirKen63 responds:

    Well I know a lot of you say Bear, and if not for the other things going on at that camp site I would have to agree. One of the things that to me I would have ask was there a smell? If a bigfoot left this smear on the truck, then it would be contact with its hair and oils on the hair. Would it not leave a smell behind?
    Now one of the reasons I do not think it was a bear, is a bear would have trashed everything in the back of that truck, equipment and coolers full of food. Plus the logs and trees placed around the Jeep and Truck where not placed there by bears.

    Now it hard for a lot of you to think a bigfoot would do that to a window, so let try another way it could of happened.

    What if it was a bear drawn in by the food in the truck and the bigfoots scared it away and placed the logs and trees there around the Jeep and Truck with their scent on the logs and trees to keep the bears away.

    Just a thought. 🙂

  5. Mibs responds:

    Of course!

  6. gridbug responds:

    Bear. Plain and simple.

  7. Rael responds:

    This could even be a dog or a person, or any number of other animals.

    Kind of reminds me of all the religious people that see an outline of Jesus in their windows, they want to believe in something outside the mundane so bad that it alters their perception of reality. The only question to me is whether they actually believe or if it’s just some kind of stunt that they stand to profit from somehow. Speaking of the people from Finding Bigfoot…..

    For the record I think that there’s something to all of the reports, casts, etc. but we need more Jeff Meldrums and Esteban Sarmientos involved and less Matt Moneymakers if we expect to have any credibility.

  8. David-Australia responds:

    “Well I know a lot of you say Bear, and if not for the other things going on at that camp site I would have to agree. One of the things that to me I would have ask was there a smell? ”

    I’d say, even from this distance (half-way around the world) that the whole thing smells . . .

  9. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Who doesn’t recognise a cry for help when they hear one?

    Those men at their press conference were at pains to point out that they needed their test swabs analysed for DNA traces and if found, further analysis to possibly eliminate the ‘usual suspects’ such as bears etc.

    If DNA were found at best it might read ‘unknown primate’ but what a case they’d have! Considering all elements of the scenario.

    In addition an obvious consideration is David Raygoza’s eight or so years of prior experience at this bigfoot hotspot.

    Silly unsubstantiated supposition here on the part of that familiar few that love to stir the pot and antagonise with quick baseless conclusions must pain a lot of people, as it does me.

    No one should ‘cry bear’ at the moment. And the people that do, are choosing not to look at the sum total of the parts to this story; they are being very selective in order to antagonise the open minded optimists amongst us. lots and lots of food in ice chests were left completely undisturbed. Is that what bears do? Leave easily accessible food alone?

    I’m echoing what SirKen has said here; people need to consider the wider scenario here; you could call it ‘context‘ if you like or ‘background’ (especially those tree trunks placed on the road)

    Anyone who ‘cries bear’ at this point in time has most definitely not got an open mind. And I’d have to question whether they have a genuine interest in Cryptozoology, as their minds have been prematurely closed. I’ve read a lot of their comments on previous topics; they just love to peddle their baseless views and hurl brick bats for the hell of it. My point is; it often goes well beyond healthy scepticism or constructive criticism.

    Unfortunately ‘Wait and see’ is not a part of the simpletons mindset. They prefer to draw a conclusion early on before the ‘results are in’

  10. Adam14 responds:

    I see smudges. No bigfoot. No bear. Smudges. I don’t see how anyone gets ANYTHING out of those. The DNA analysis is the only one I consider valid. Anything else is fitting square peg in round hole.

  11. bobzilla responds:

    It is starting to look more like a bear to me. But, bear, bigfoot, or Grizzly Adams, NONE of the photos or videos look ANYTHING like the “scary face” pic that was originally released which still looks like someone was having some fun in Photoshop with the dodge and burn tools.

  12. mandors responds:

    If you watch the press conference you would now that they did not dispute that it could be a bear. They said it could be a cougar too. All they said they don’t know that’s why they want to get the DNA tested.

    They make two points:

    1) There were coolers of food in the back of the truck, ham, chicken, sandwiches, all supposedly free access—why did if it was a bear didn’t the bear go after the food?

    2) There are no hair marks on the mouth or nose. A bear or cougar should have left hair marks.

  13. Redrose999 responds:

    I stand by bear, until proven otherwise. The bigfoot face was, well too much like Rorschach blot, and the human brain likes to interpret images into faces. So until those theories are proved wrong, I can’t entertain the idea of it being a bigfoot. I do have an open mind, but I think it is sloppy science to assume that is it something less likely than what we already know is in the environment.

    And I do hope that makes sense. I really would love to be wrong here. It would be awesome to find Bigfoot exists. But based on what I am seeing, I just don’t have a good feeling about this one.

  14. Craig Woolheater responds:

    If you watch the press conference you would now that they did not dispute that it could be a bear. They said it could be a cougar too. All they said they don’t know that’s why they want to get the DNA tested.

    They make two points:

    1) There were coolers of food in the back of the truck, ham, chicken, sandwiches, all supposedly free access—why did if it was a bear didn’t the bear go after the food?

    2) There are no hair marks on the mouth or nose. A bear or cougar should have left hair marks.mandors


    That’s all fine and well. So they acknowledge that it could be a bear or a cougar…

    If that is the case, why bill the event in their press release as:

    Potentially the Most Convincing Evidence of Bigfoot Since the Patterson Film of 1967

    We have an full upper body impression including half of its face On the passenger side window of a pickup truck

    And on the drivers side window, the Nostrils, Nose and Lips of a BigfootJeffrey Gonzalez

    As for your #1:

    Bigfoot have been reported to opportunistic eaters.

    I would think that is several Bigfoot were snooping around, looking through the truck windows, that they very likely would have gone through the coolers to raid the food.


    As you can plainly see in the above photo, the bear has a nose and lips that are hairless.

    In their announcement, they make it pretty clear that the only suspect is a Bigfoot, not a bear or cougar.

  15. RWRidley responds:

    It’s remarkable how different the smudge looks at different angles. Straight on it does look like a bear. Step to the right and take a picture and it does have a slight apish appearance. I agree that it is most likely a bear. The Mickey Burrow images are hard to dismiss. These paranormal people may very well have good intentions, but they lack a reasonable amount of skepticism to challenge their own beliefs. They are out to prove what they believe at the expense of all evidence to the contrary.

  16. Redrose999 responds:

    Thank you for making those points Craig.

  17. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:


    Craig Woolheater:- I think it’s fair to say that the full face print smudges as seen directly upon the glass look quite unremarkable compared to that stunning final finished image taken from the preferred camera angle. The ‘Turin Shroud’ effect was (as I’d speculated on an earlier posting) the result of reversing the tonal values during the processing of the image; for the sake of a clearer and more dramatic presentation. It worked! …whether it’s truly a sasquatch face print or not, you can’t deny it has a striking quality that’s hard to dispel.

    Did you see R.W.Ridleys stunning enhancement in red?

    So here is the conundrum: Considering the other ‘bigfoot elements’ to this story; anecdotal or otherwise, and in the wider context of this being a bigfoot ‘hotspot’: if this unassuming smear was instead created by a bear, or as someone suggested earlier a porcupine (etcetera) then what are the odds of this kind of random smear providing so many well ordered coherent facial features pertaining to what Jefferey Gonzales has speculated as being the face print of a juvenile sasquatch? What are the odds?

    I have only questions not answers! A coincidence? Does the human brain see what it wants to see? …Like seeing faces in the fire? Two eyes, a nose, a mouth, cheekbones, all set upon a head, with a neck and a shoulder? All a coincidence? An illusion?

    I know! …Let’s hope DNA is found; let’s hope it gets tested. And let’s hope first and foremost a university out there or a similar academic body as got the generosity of spirit and the bravery to take them swabs on for testing. We need not fear the truth! Nor should they!

  18. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Redrose999:- The last thing you have is an open mind! Look at your own words! You say you are NOT prepared to entertain the idea that it’s a bigfoot, and then say you are open minded! You have concluded it’s a bear until proven otherwise! Yet you have NO PROOF in the first place that it IS in fact a bear! To remain truly open minded at this stage is to be non-committal until all the evidence is in and analysed.

    You no doubt would talk about probability; but one man out in the woods with his ears and eyes open, after many years may draw an assured conclusion: ‘bigfoot hotspot’. Whilst the sceptic in ‘one second’ easily says, in a contrary fashion from his armchair far removed: ‘bear hotspot’, and so it goes forever on; diametrically opposing views, like ‘yin & yang’ an example however highlighting the fact that some written views can be casual, cheap, baseless, and yet unfortunately still cut like a sword in opposition.

    Off at a slight tangent here: I personally believe that bigfoot exists based on the evidence and proof that those few brave primatologists with the courage of their convictions have brought to the fore and into the public domain over these past fifty years or so. I don’t care too much about the idea of winning sceptics around. Robert von Beringe in 1902 probably didn’t give a ‘gorillas crap’ about winning the sceptics around, let alone pandering to them. Why pander to them? He went out and discovered the mountain gorilla for all the world to see!

    The whole history of scientific advancement has been dogged by that perennially stubborn conservative rearguard that does not easily accept change. Even when the facts are thrust upon them! In 1633 Galileo was tried and sentenced as a heretic for advocating the sun was at the centre of our solar system. Many scientists attacked the theory because it disagreed with Aristotle’s model of the universe, as well as several passages of scripture. Galileo’s part in the controversies over theology, astronomy, philosophy, culminated in his trial and sentencing by the Roman Inquisition in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy. He was found guilty, and banned from further studies on the subject, and was kept under house arrest for the rest of his life!

    Hard bitten and dogmatic sceptics & scoftics are anathema to the advancement of the cause. They are a plague upon our doors!

    Just thoughts really…..

  19. mrdark responds:

    In the original phone photo, I saw -nothing- and still see nothing. Never understood the excitement. With this bigger, clearer photo, immediately: BEAR. The paw marks are as clear as day. Primates don’t have paws like that, period, ever. No primate = no bigfoot = no story.

  20. flame821 responds:

    @ dermal ridges are proof

    I think you’re taking our healthy skepticism a bit too far. Its as simple as what is the most likely answer to the question/problem.

    As for the logs, didn’t the fellow state there were rushing to get out, leaving vehicles behind due to a huge storm? Wind, rain, snow. He also stated they did not have the truck evaluated where it stood due to needing to get out of there as another storm was on the way and they also didn’t think the forensic guy could get up to where they were.

    Is it odd that none of the food was disturbed? Bears don’t always tear things open, it depends on how hungry they are and if there are more pressing matters. Would it be wonderful if this proved to be Bigfoot? Of course it would and I’d be the first to admit I was wrong. But there needs to be a certain level of probability met and, to me, this doesn’t meet it.

    Look at what elhombre did with the photo, he took the time and effort to see how things would match up. Look at the full shoot of the driver’s window. You can even see where the pads end and the mucky claws hit above a few of the pads. Now it may well be my personal bias but I am going under the assumption that Bigfoot is more Primate than Ursus, there may or may not be an opposable thumb, but I don’t expect to see walking pads and claws either.

    This is not a bunch of people thumbing their noses saying, ‘hah, no body no bigfoot’ MOST of us on this site do believe that there is an undocumented mammal living in deep forests of North America. But we won’t jump on every piece of evidence as if it were the holy grail either, if it doesn’t pass our eyes how is it going to look to the general public? If we go forward with “proof” of Bigfoot it has to be the BEST proof we can gather.

    Blurry videos and smudges don’t prove anything to anyone and to be honest it makes us look like fools and idiots to the rest of the population; that population has the ability to fund exploration into this subject, they also have the ability to laugh it into oblivion to the point that no scientist of any caliber would ever willingly take a look at ANY evidence, no matter how compelling.

  21. korollocke responds:

    Dermal, two things. First, dermal ridges don’t prove jack diddly, a 1954 novelty item called crazy feet make great bigfoot prints, and guess what? They have dermal ridges!

    Next all those trees and logs you mention being placed by bigfoot, were placed by the crew making the claims at the press conference.

    The original photo we were shown is highly photo shopped. Pretty easy to tell given the straight on & different colored mud smudges we are seeing now, I don’t even think it was a wild animal, just the crew made this smear as well. Total hoax all around. A coincidental juvenile sasqautch photo? Seriously!

  22. Redrose999 responds:

    Just because I’m critical minded, doesn’t mean I’m close minded.

    If I didn’t have an open mind, I wouldn’t be here at all. I’m a big supporter of folks like The Texas Bigfoot Conservancy and the use scientific method. I don’t see that here. And to be frank, over the 6 years I’ve been lurking on Cryptomundo, I’ve seen hoax over hoax. I’ve be a fool to “believe something is a possibility” when I can see other suspects in the matter. I try not to let my wishful thinking rule my rational mind, I’m very cautious. I had hopes with the BF in the freezer, and honestly, I don’t want to have hopes like that again dashed. The research for Bigfoot will never be taken seriously if we all insist everything we find is Bigfoot. Scientists in the Bigfoot community will just be mocked.

    We all have different ways of interpreting “evidence”. I have respect for folks who have more faith in Bigfoot’s existence than I. I’m not a researcher, so I can’t come out and directly say what I am seeing is a Bigfoot, just what I already know. I also like to agree to disagree. I hope they prove me wrong. But I can’t have faith in something that seems sketchy to me. And this entire thing does. Science is about discussion and giving out ideas and possibilities. It’s a dialogue. But it is no jumping to a conclusion that fails to entertain the more likely possibilities. And we do that here.

    Personally I feel there is something we haven’t discovered in the woods. History shows too many stories implying something is out there. And I feel there is something about the Paterson film that’s “too real”, I still keep open to the possibility I could be wrong, I’ve been before, but there is very much a part of me that is convinced I’m seeing an unknown animal in it. Which is why I feel the film needs to be proved to be a hoax. A body will prove it is real.

    And I will add, I HEARD something in the woods, that terrifying yell that was very similar to the Ohio calls. To this day I can’t explain it, nor can I explain the terror we all felt when it was moving closer to us. There is a part of me that wants to believe it was a Bigfoot, but I also know, rationally if I jump down that road, I’d be ignoring other things. I don’t want to do that. But I digress, it is because of my own experience with a possible Bigfoot call, that I am so critical. And critical to me, does not mean closed minded. If it does to you, than lets respectfully agree to disagree.

  23. Redrose999 responds:

    I also want to note: we’ve waited for evidence before to be analyzed. The Bigfoot body had a DNA swab too. It doesn’t mean much to me these days because I feel a scientist must have a sound theory and solid physical evidence or DNA validated before announcing their discovery.

    I find the most interesting Bigfoot evidence is in the patterns found in actual the statistical data. Patterns that show tangible migration patterns, and population variations from place to place, based on both sightings and footprint discoveries.

  24. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    RWRidley:- You say: “they lack a reasonable amount of skepticism to challenge their own beliefs”

    “They are out to prove what they believe at the expense of all evidence to the contrary“.

    Clearly in the press conference, without making any conclusive statements; they were at pains to point out that DNA analysis would settle matters to satisfy their own curiosity as well as everyone else’s as to what creature made the prints. They didn’t rule anything in or out conclusively at this stage.

    You’re as guilty as a minority of others are on this blog of ‘selective hearing’ in order to damn someone’s honest efforts to get to the truth of the matter.

    There’s only one thing Jefferey Gonzales & Co have been guilty of so far, and that’s a bit of audacious over hyping regarding what was actually going to be presented at the conference. It was never billed in the vein of a ‘cry for help’ (regarding help with DNA testing). On a positive note the significance of their findings have yet to be realised.

  25. sasquatch responds:

    Yip, bear

  26. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Redrose999:- I suppose our hearts may well be singing from the same hymn sheet (or should that be prayer sheet)!

    All I’m saying is that with the possible DNA aspect to this it’s a bit early to draw a conclusion. I’m saying: “please hang fire” because hopefully this is research in progress; lets wait and see.

    It could be a bear or a sasquatch (I’m tempted to rule out a porcupine however) or a hoax perpetrated by outsiders.

    I know the Georgia bigfoot hoax continues to cast it’s long shadow. But surely the discipline must be that each case is judged on its own merits.

    If there is no DNA found, this episode may remain enigmatic, controversial and forever inconclusive.

  27. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Ahhh! Korollocke!

    When someone is as sceptical as you are it’s like reading pure comedy! You do make me laugh! However if you could ‘debunk’ using scientific methodology I wouldn’t be laughing, you would be changing the way I think; you would have my gratitude!

    I can laugh at myself you know! …I love healthy scepticism; here’s a case in point: I discovered not too long ago that Matt Crowley had by scientific demonstration proven that ‘dermal ridges’ found on the underside of plaster casts were in fact ‘desiccation ridges’ a characteristic of drying plaster, and not at all to be associated with markings from the soles of primates feet. I don’t know if Jimmy Chilcutt went into hiding. I know I do at times with my particular posting name!!!

    In the context of the above: ‘dermal ridges are not proof’ …I know!

    For a few weeks now I’ve been wanting to change my posting name. How embarrassing that I‘ve been sussed!

    Kind Regards

  28. Cryptoz responds:

    Maybe a Sasquatch got into a fight with a bear and slammed the bear’s face against the window! 🙂

  29. Hapa responds:


    A certain Matt Crowley proved that the dermal ridges on bigfoot print casts were the properties of plaster? Dessication ridges? Wouldn’t that mean that dermal ridges of human and known primate casts were also dessication ridges? Is this guy from skeptical enquirer (which should make his results fishy to begin with)?

    Matt Crowley is mentioned in Meldrum’s book (page 257), but it stated that his initial work didn’t debunk supposed sasquatch dermal ridges as a whole, but specifically those of a cast called the Onion Mountain Cast. I’ll try to look up Matt Crowley, and any responses to his work. Do you have a link to his research?

  30. loopstheloop responds:

    Look, if head-on the image is clearly orsine, then why did they publish the side-on version that made it look as much as possible like a sasquatch? Or why did the big bear comparison in their press conference?

    The head-on image clearly shows bear… so why did they try and deceive everyone… and all for a paltry sum?

  31. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:


    I would welcome any clarification on ‘dermal ridges v desiccation ridges’. I would like to start feeling good once more regarding my posting name! I’m sure the information is out there to be gleaned somewhere.

    However, when I learned of Matt Crowley’s findings, my heart sank to say the least. Could it really be the last word on this? The final and most truthful analysis?

    Here’s the video that seems so conclusive and a little dispiriting at the same time.

    There are other clips in tandem with this one too.

    In the meantime, for starters I will look up Jeff Meldrums ‘page 257’ sounds like it might be a tonic!

  32. Hapa responds:

    Here are some telling words about Matt Crowley’s work: He was able to replicate something akin to dermal ridges on soft, dry soils, not wet mud, which both The Elkins Cast and the famous “Wrinkle-Foot” cast were made in, and who knows how many more. Not all Bigfoot tracks are made in dry soil for crying out loud!

  33. RWRidley responds:

    dermal_ridges_are_proof – I’m basing my statement on their “Most convincing evidence of bigfoot” claim that they made in their initial press release. Whoever wrote and/or authorized that press release has drawn the conclusion that they have clear and convincing evidence of bigfoot. The press conference itself didn’t have the same conviction as that one statement, but I’m still reluctant to give them a pass based on that claim. I still don’t know why they didn’t at least investigate the cost of DNA analysis more thoroughly before holding the press conference. Personally, I wouldn’t have called the press conference until a basic test had been run on DNA to determine if it was a known animal. Those are relatively inexpensive tests.

  34. norman-uk responds:

    I am grateful for these groups who go out in the wilderness and offer up glimpses of the mystery that is bigfoot and enable folks like me to sit in my armchair and share by proxy their wonderful adventures. It beats sitting on my patio feeding sparrows and the blackbird with one white tail feather, for all its charms!

    The smear on the truck window reminds me mostly of Darth Vader but this would be low on any list of probabilities. I should think bear would be first with a chance it could be bigfoot. As usual what needs to be decided and more difficult, is what the facts show whether it contradicts probability or not. I don’t think one can be positive what the smear is and one can only make an arbitrary choice, that it is a bear.

    Very likely there is DNA of a sort, that wonderful almost everlasting substance, which ideally could in this case give a positive identification. If the DNA turns out to be one not on the DNA data base and suggestive of bigfoot then that would be wonderful. There is a myth, a sceptic mantra which seems to be generally accepted by bigfoot enthusiasts, that a result of this nature is next to worthless without a body. Not so!

    I quote Dr Melba Ketchum of DNA diagnostics who obtained a result for some putative Yeti hair from a Josh Gates expedition that it was from a large unknown primate not on the genetic data base, visually not human hair and coarser than horse tail hair. ”If we are going to prove this is a new species with this first sample we need more samples like it”. There are probably similar samples the results not being linked. What genbank ought to do is keep a record of this type of DNA result under some kind of reasonable descriptor with a title based on the place where the first sample of a type was found. So build up a resource of data and provisionally separate different types. I doubt Orang Pendek is very close to bigfoot which would be reflected in the DNA.

    In effect there would be a type specimen not absolutely dependent on a body. This is coming to terms with the modern power and relevence of DNA in the 21st century. I would suggest doubters consider the position if say a 100 or a 1000 samples with provenance were found to have the same DNA type. It would become ridiculous not to start to accepting the fact of a new species with possibly characteristics becoming known. So plaudits to those who by their struggle get these samples and those who try, as in the current case even if they do not get the result they hoped for. We already have a case similar in some ways in the Denesovan example where a little bit of old bone was found to have unknown DNA and a new species was named..

    So don’t accept the sceptics case about ‘unknown primate’ being useless. Do give proper value to the ‘unknown primate’ results they are an invaluable resource and give a huge boost, in context, to proving bigfoot is real. I await with interest the outcome of the Mande Burung DNA analysis and the ‘hobbit’.

  35. flame821 responds:

    Cheer up Dermal ridges are proof,

    From what I’m reading on his site, only certain types of soil produce these fake ridges (he mentions soil with high loess soils – high in silt, sand, clay and bound with Calcium Carbonate) it tends to be highly porous and filled with tiny capillaries.

    I’m guessing here, but if you use a high moisture product, like plaster or cement or anything along those lines, the moisture is pulled out of the medium at a quicker than normal rate causing fracturing of the medium which then gets translated by humans into dermal ridges and scars.

    From what I am reading, it is a soil specific phenomena.

    And regardless of casting, dermal ridges, aka fingerprints, left on a smooth surface are exactly what they appear to be. There would be no concern about the transfer medium in such a situation, just the manner in which the tech lifted the fingerprints.

  36. korollocke responds:

    Nice to know I’m a million laughs to some. The desperate attempts at getting attention by all these phony ass bigfoot discoveries provides a great deal of mirth to many as well, including entertaining serious bigfoot researchers.

    Mud smeared on a window by some dude and photographed by another dude doesn’t prove jack squat.

    Given all the trees and logs moved allegedly by bigfoot or bigfoots/bigfeet, wouldn’t there have dozens of footprints? Hows about hair or feces? Just saying…

  37. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Thanks Hapa, I’ve read Jeff Meldrums ‘page 257’ (and a few others), that was nice medicine; a real tonic!

    My confidence in my posting name is restored! …Dermal ridges ARE indeed proof!

    Apparently the expert eye can distinguish between the more predictable characteristics of spontaneous poured plaster artefacts (desiccation ridges) and the more finer complexities of real primate dermatoglyphics (dermal ridges). But with the caveat that further research needs to be undertaken concerning plaster that is poured in dry hot conditions.

    I’m not the font of all knowledge; I’m on an interesting learning curve like many others. Thanks again Hapa for nudging me in the right direction.

    Hey! Korollocke! …are you seriously saying that the dermal ridges on those 1950’s rubber ‘crazy feet’ you mention; for purposes of comparison, are on a par with real primate dermal ridges? In all their fine complexity? Do those 1950’s rubber ‘crazy feet’ leave pressure ridges behind indicating ‘midtarsal break’ foot morphology?

    Or do you prefer not to go into depth? Let me know Korollocke as your crazy rubber feet undoubtedly may hold the key to solving the bigfoot mystery in it‘s entirety.

    Thanks in advance, Dermal ridges are proof

  38. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Hapa:- Thanks for the M.Crowley link, I’ll be clicking on that one shortly.

    Flame821:- Thanks for your cheery support at this difficult time!

    Korollocke:- If (in the future) they had DNA found & tested with an ‘unknown primate’ result would you be happy? Would you change your sceptical take on this story? Or for that matter if it was bear DNA, would your views alter with hindsight?

    My view is that a hoax and a press conference is akin to a fast track to hell! Nobody in their right minds would follow in the footsteps of Biscardi and the Georgia boys of 2008. It’s the road to complete personal ruination. I think Gonzales & Co at the press conference were sincere.

  39. Nominay responds:

    dermal_ridges – 3 days ago I asked you a question on the “Sasquatch Face Print Exclusive” thread … if you don’t mind going back a page, I was looking fwd to an answer. thanx

  40. Hapa responds:


    Your welcome 🙂

    Page 256 of Meldrum’s book talked about wicking and plaster and how you can tell the difference between dessication and dermal ridges, and how the former cannot account for prints with dermal ridges made in mud or wet silt.

    There’s also a $100,000 reward from proprietors of the California’s Willow Creek-China Flat Museum for anyone who can fool a panel of experts with fake tracks. If we were capable of perfectly faking all Bigfoot track evidence, even making dessication ridges to pass perfectly for Dermal ridges, then somebody should be either getting rich or going public with being denied the cash unfairly. See Michael Newton’s Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: a global guide, page 61.

  41. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Nominay:- Thanks for dropping me a line. My answer is now in place!

  42. Redrose999 responds:


    I believe we are sharing the prayer book! LOL We just approach the situation with different thinking styles. I’m afraid I am a glass half empty, rather than a glass half full when it comes to things. Like many people here, I am here for answers to the great mystery that is Cryptozoology!

    And I agree, I do believe these folks are sincere in the matter and I am happy they did do DNA, it will just be a wait for the results. It just takes too damn long for the results.

    Also, I am delighted you brought up the dermal ridges conversation. But my husband and I discussed it at length, and neither of us felt the various debunking of them made sense for ALL of the prints. Problem with debunking what ever method they use to debunk, does not hold with the varying conditions the prints are found or made in. Your name has inspired quite an informative debate. Thank you Hapa, and flame821 for the dermal ridges information!

    Now I must go and read that section of Jeff’s book!

  43. Redrose999 responds:

    A press release on this situation.

  44. korollocke responds:

    That wasn’t much of a press release. This will turn out to be absolutely not bigfoot.

  45. norman-uk responds:


    Lot of criticism of Gonzalez etc for not taking the easy option and having their sample quickly analysed. They are reported thus;

    Previous attempts to analyze potential Bigfoot DNA haven’t resulted in anything that could be considered as the scientific find of the ages. That’s why Gonzalez is being very careful about who he’ll turn over his reported Bigfoot DNA to.

    And Gonzales (?)
    “We need somebody to come forward to take this DNA and get it mapped,” he told AOL. “Since nobody knows what a Bigfoot is, there’s no available DNA for it. But by testing this DNA, by process of elimination we can find out if it was a bear, gorilla, baboon or something.

    Now if you listen to the following monstertalk item and you are even basically fair minded you will understand why they do not wish refer it to this particular lab or any like it especially as it has been pivotal in not finding anything special in the last 16 years. Indeed the labs reputation seems to have been built on this failure. Todd Disotell comes across as arrogant and scoftical and by no means fair minded. His lab and those like it is the last place to take a potential sasqatch sample to, unless it is in a body, when he could enjoy the glory having been spoon fed the evidence.

    Please look at this link but if you are someone who gives credence to sasquatch be prepared to be sneered at!

  46. norman-uk responds:


    Now compare the monster talk item with this;

    Josh Gates interview with Dr. Melba Ketchum on DNA sample

    (Here is the transcript of Josh Gates’ 11/5/09 interview with Dr. Melba Ketchum, a forensic analyst with DNA Diagnostics, Inc., from the an episode of Destination Truth)

    Ketchum: I didn’t think we would have anything to talk about here, to be honest. I was just going to rule out yeti and be done with it. I submitted the sequence that we obtained from this hair sample to a large international database that scientists use to deposit their sequence data. Well, at first I was very skeptical, because we’ve had these things come into our lab in the past, and they never panned out to be anything interesting. However, this sample did test very clearly on the human panel of markers. That makes it a primate, and it makes it a large primate.

    Gates: And how are we sure that it isn’t just human contamination or that it’s just DNA from human hair?

    Ketchum: The hair, visually, is not human. It’s courser than horse tail hair.

    Gates: (voiceover) what she told me next seemed unbelievable.

    Ketchum: Initial searches indicate that it’s an unknown sequence. There are literally millions of sequences in this database. And we’re really shocked that it didn’t match any of the species exactly in the database.

    Gates: What would be required in order for us to say, from a DNA standpoint, the yeti is a real animal.

    Ketchum: If we’re going to prove that there potentially is a new species, with this first hair sample, we really need more hair samples like it. And once you establish there is a group of animals, that will go a long ways towards proving that there is a new species indeed.

    Assuming there is no chicanery involved (and with TV, how can you ever be sure?) this has to be considered a major find. And it gives us good reason to go back and find the results that we’ve all heard of before, of those hairs that come back unknown primate. If these hairs can be located and tested again, they might show a familial resemblance with the hairs Destination Truth found. And I’d find that pretty significant.


    Much better!

  47. sausage1 responds:

    Couldn’t see Sasquatch before, and I can’t see a bear now either. It looks like a half finished Francis Bacon to me.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.