October 29, 2008

Happy Halloween!!


October 14, 2008

Witness Testimony and The Truth Of An Issue.

Prosecutor in one of Dallas County's DNA exonerations no longer supports death penalty.
6:02 AM Mon, Oct 13, 2008
Jennifer Emily

James A. Fry, who prosecuted Dallas County exoneree Charles Chatman, said he is "shaken to the core" because of the number of exonerations throughout the country and problems with eye witness testimony.

Once a staunch supporter of capital punishment, Mr. Fry said no longer supports it because of the problems in the criminal justice system highlighted by the exonerations.

"I don't think the system can prove who is guilty and who is innocent," he said in an interview at his office in Sherman where he practices family law.

Mr. Fry prosecuted Mr. Chatman in 1981 for the rape of the exonerated man's former neighbor. Mr. Fry said that at the time, he believed the victim had correctly picked out Mr. Chatman from a photo lineup.

This week, The Dallas Morning News is running stories from its 8-month examination of the county's 19 DNA exonerations that show that eyewitness testimony can be flawed.

Dallas County has had more DNA exonerations than any other local jurisdiction since 2001 when the state began allowing post-conviction DNA testing. Unlike most other counties, Dallas County has preserved decades of evidence.

End story.

This issue is something that has been yelled about for years by people who work in criminal defense. Eyewitness testimony is unbelievably unreliable, especially when you mix that with a very emotional witness.

What's frightening now is, a Dallas County Prosecutor is saying he no longer supports the death penalty. In a state where there is not just the death penalty but, an express line. Makes one stop and think huh?

How does this story affect bigfoot??

In this field of research we have those who will believe whatever they are told then, we have the opposite side of that spectrum, those who listen to nothing a witness has to say and calls everyone a liar, because the information given does not fit their idea of what is believable.

So, the moral of this blog? Take witness statements for what they are, they have the potential to give us information to move forward.


If you're to harsh on a possible witness, you could be wrong. Even those who are certain of their ability, make big mistakes by assuming they are right.

Does this mean we should never listen to witnesses and stop taking reports?

No. We do need to put these reports into perspective however, and assess them for the information they contain, or do not contain. That's it. Period. We do ourselves a huge disservice however by either taking the information at face value, or assuming we know someone is lieing, when all we have is the information provided in an internet posting.

You're right in thinking DNA and death penalty cases are pretty extreme, because they are.

The premise of the problem is however the same. These Prosecutors I am sure were certain their witnesses were telling the truth. Years (not months) later, a simple test proved those witnesses were wrong. So, while the situations are different, the end result is still the same. Witness testimony is unreliable, when you are looking for the "truth of the matter", but may be helpful in looking for avenues to explore, alternatives or ideas.

Just something to consider and think about.....

October 7, 2008

TBRC's Craig Woolheater on "The Grey Area" Oct 8, 2008

On this Wednesday's addition of "The Grey Area", we will have none other than the TBRC's Craig Woolheater. Craig will discuss the upcoming TBRC Conference in Jefferson Texas on October 18th.

Please tune in, as he will be discussing the conference and hear about all the exciting things being planned, and who will be speaking.
Tune in at 8 Central/9 Eastern !!!!!!!!!!

October 5, 2008

SE Returns Tonight...

After a brief hiatus The Sasquatch Experience returns with a recap of the 2008 East Coast Bigfoot Conference, with attendees BJ Hollars (AL) and Craig Woolheater (TX).

We will be discussing Speaker Presentations, the Sunday Guided Tour, as well as the events pre and post Conference.

Pictures of the event can be found here:

October 1, 2008

Dermal Ridges and Artifacts

Jimmy Chilcutt rocked the world of bigfooting in 2003 by revealing that dermal ridges found on several casts, especially the Onion Mountain cast, provided evidence for the existence of the creature. In 2005, Matt Crowley demonstrated through experiments with volcanic ash and hydrocal that he could produce casting artifacts that were similar in appearance to the dermal ridges on the Onion Mountain cast. I, too, have been experimenting with the concept of dermal ridges being casting artifacts and this article provides information on my results. I hope this will foster discussion about whether or not dermal ridges and casting artifacts are an issue every time you cast, or something that can be avoided.Matt Crowley has done excellent work in this regard, but we still do not know under what conditions these artifacts are possible. My work has been about what specific conditions are needed to create artifacts. While I do not have all of the casting done yet, this article will describe my results to date.

Background Information:

Throughout my experiments, I have spoken with the following agencies to verify information about the soil the Onion Mountain casts were made in, the type of casting material used during the event, what other casting materials might have been available in 1967, what methods Mr. Green used to cast the print, and how that all related to the possible presence of casting artifacts in the Onion Mountain cast:

1. USGS.

2. NRCS.

3. Six Rivers National Forest

4. Gifford Pinchot National Forest

5. Soil Scientists with Humbolt County California

6. Soil Scientist of 20 + years who works with Cornell University

7. A Volcanologist currently working on Mt. St. Helens

8. An expert in casting cements (who has instructed such agencies as the FBI in how to properly mix various casting cements in the field in relation to their work recovering evidence, even dermal ridges).

Please note that I will not disclose the names of anyone I spoke with publicly, as they requested not to be referenced in relation to this research. Also important to this research is the background story of the people and the circumstances surrounding their involvement. It has been suggested that John Green mixed the plaster of paris used to cast the Onion Mountain track, thereby resulting in the casting artifacts. In my search for information, I discovered that there was another man there the day the track was cast by the name of Don Abbott, who was an archaeologist for a Museum in BC. Mr. Abbott knew how to recover items of interest to the field of archeology. Given his profession, one would assume that he was educated in the proper mixing of plaster of paris. I know it is said that John Green actually cast the Onion Mountain track, but it may not be as simple as that.

I asked why Don Abbott would have flown down from BC over some footprints in the dirt. I was told that Mr. Green was attempting to get enough proof (for a purpose I can not verify yet) to verify the existance of this North American Primate, and asked Mr. Abbott to be present. Mr. Abbott’s position within the BC Museum would have given credibility to anything that was found. It is also reported Mr. Abbott arrived a skeptic and left a firm believer. Now, does any of this prove anything about the validity of the dermals found in the Onion Mountain track? No, but it is so important to understand the entire picture surrounding a situation.

Would Mr. Abbott have shared his knowledge and experience in archeology with Mr. Green, in the event he was to come across a find and Mr. Abbott not be able to make it down in time? I think that's highly probable. Remember, Mr. Green was trying to prove the existence of this animal, and someone in the position of Mr. Abbott would care about the quality of the work attached to his name.

I mention this because it has been said that at that time no one really cared about the details within the tracks, casting was only done to preserve the shape of the track. Well, I became interested in more information when I seen pictures of Mr. Abbott using various items as a "barrier" (such as sprays and liquids). Why did Mr. Abbott feel it necessary to try these various barriers? It’s my contention he wouldn't, unless he were trying to preserve something within the track itself. It’s my contention that Mr. Abbott may have seen something else within those very tracks. Thus, the attempts to preserve all the details within those tracks. At the very minimum, he was interested in more than just the shape of the track.

I have no proof that Mr. Abbott shared any information with Mr. Green about how to cast, that would have helped him recover dermal ridge evidence or to even minimize the damage that could have been done in prior casts. I do think the likelihood of this is pretty high. Why would Mr. Abbott waste his time, or even get involved if he was not interested in getting results from a situation he was involved in?


The first picture is the soil I chose for this set of experiments. The soil is specifically from Onion Mountain in the Six Rivers National Forest. This is important because Matt used volcanic ash in his experiments.

My first task was to determine if there was any volcanic ash on Onion Mountain back in 1967. To find this out, I spoke with a soil scientist for the NRCS and people currently doing this very work in this area as we speak.

A soil sample was taken the year prior to the casting of the Onion Mountain Track. The sample showed no volcanic ash. This soil sample was heavy in clay, which is a by-product of volcanic ash, but volcanic ash itself was not present. If unprotected from the elements, volcanic ash breaks down into other minerals within two years. Its chemical composition can be completely altered, and can be altered faster if that ash is on a hill or mountainside. This information was received from a USGS Volcanologist currently working on Mt. St. Helens in Washington State.

To reiterate, there is no volcanic ash in this soil. It is my contention that just because you can get artifacts using one specific soil, that does not mean it will happen in every known soil. I would not even call volcanic ash soil until it has broken down into the clay and surrounding soil. It should also be noted volcanic ash differs from volcano to volcano.

Much has been mentioned regarding road construction in the area at that time. I spoke with the gentleman in charge of road maintenance for Six Rivers National Forest. I asked him a few questions.

1. If you know, back in 1967, where were the rocks obtained that were to be used to add to the logging roads on Onion Mountain?

Answer: Back during that time the geologists working for the Six Rivers National Forest were very concerned with keeping to the natural setting of the forest, so, they would look for quarries within the forest to mine the rocks from for the roads. Back at that time the rocks were taken from quarries within a 10 to 15 miles radius. Now, they truck it in from as far away as Willow Creek - but it is the same kind of rock - the geologists on staff are sure of that.

2. When you grate a road, how far does this grating go into the current road?

Answer: About 2 inches.

3. When an area is excavated for a logging road, how much of the soil is removed for the road itself?

Answer: Any soil removed for the logging road is put back into the road. Very little, if anything, is removed from the site of the road. They do this to try and keep all the original minerals in that area.

But once the road is originally constructed, it is only grated before new rock is put back on; nothing is removed from the area.This is a National Forest. Projects are done in these types of forests with preservation of the area in mind, not just whatever it takes to get the job done. The road construction crew's and geologists are devoted to preserving the natural state of the forest, and they do whatever they can to accomplish this. These areas are set up so they are not lost to man's intrusion, and can be studied so that we may all benefit from them.

In summary, my interview with this employee suggests that the soil used to create and/or grade the Onion Mountain road was the same soil already present on the mountain (i.e., new soil was not brought in) and further, that the same soil present in 1967 is the same soil as today.


As mentioned above, I was able to obtain soil samples directly from Onion Mountain for my experiments. My very first cast was done in the state in which I received the soil, unsifted or cleaned. I then moved on to tests and sifted the soil, to remove the larger pieces of organic materials. Based on what I have read and have been told by Matt, if I heat my water to 100 degrees and create a thick mix of my plaster of paris and pour straight into the track, I will get the artifacts he did.

I found no expansion and no artifacts other than a deep depression in the soil where the casting cement made first contact. This I find curious, as I found a soil disturbance where the cement mix hit the soil in a straight pour, as did Matt in his first cast in this soil, but the Onion Mountain Cast did not show it.

My cast did show dermal ridges and flexion creases. How do I know this? The foot used for the cast was my own, therefore the dermal ridges and flexion creases were clearly from my own foot. So, even with all the organic material in this soil - dermal ridges and flexion creases can be obtained using a casting agent.

Did I think I would get dermal ridges? I really didn't expect to, so this was a pleasant surprise. The dermals are hard to see but are noted by the red arrows. This is to be expected, as I am a human female, and I have smaller dermals and flexion creases than a man. Nonetheless they are there.

My first attempt to create casting artifacts failed. But why? Matt was using Hydrocal B-11, which was not being manufactured in 1967; I am using plaster of paris, which is the only casting agent I can find that was for sale during that period. Is the use of Hydrocal B-11 the difference? I really do not think that is the case, as Matt Crowley was able to create these artifacts using plaster of paris in at least one cast I know about. He also used Volcanic Ash, while I used the soil from Onion Mountain. The soil from Onion Mountain is very high in clay, and clay is also something Matt used, and was able to recreate these artifacts.

I did have some very interesting results, and I will be sharing those shortly, along with the conversation I had with the gypsum expert. In lab conditions with the ability to alter water temps, air temps, etc., you can make anything happen; the question is, will it happen to us under the conditions we experience in the field? As of yet, we do not have that information.

Continuing Experiments:

My experiments are continuing, but so that it is clear, I am not yet using Hydrocal, as the Onion Mountain cast was made with Plaster of Paris. I will be using Hydrocal B11 very soon and will publish my findings shortly thereafter.