July 29, 2006

Book Review: by Dbdonlon

The Psychic Sasquatch and their UFO Connection, by Jack “Kewaunee” Lapseritis. Wild Flower Press, 1998.

This book is pretty hard to come by now. I was able to get a new copy through, and that’s pretty much the route you have to go through if you want to get it. But I’m not sure I recommend getting this book if what you wanted was a thorough and rigorous testing of the psychic sasquatch theory. Because that’s one thing you won’t get.

Lapseritis makes a noticeable number of references to his scientific background, yet after reading his book, I am left wondering if this background makes any difference at all. And this is no mere quibble – he says that he has seventy-six cases in his files of psychic sasquatch encounters, but he also says he can’t tell you anything about the people involved because they requested anonymity. This is alright in itself, but it does put a burden on Mr. Lapseritis to show us that we can trust him with the facts, since there is not going to be any way for us to independently verify them. And I don’t believe he does enough to earn that trust throughout his book.

There are several problems that undermine our trust in Lapseritis as we read. I’ll lay them out and then illustrate them with some examples. First, since Lapseritis is asking us to trust his judgement, he needs to illustrate that he has good judgement. He doesn’t do this; in fact, he does the opposite, illustrating that he does not have a fundamental grasp of persuasive argument. Also, if he’s going to make reference to the large number of cases he says he has collected, then he should try to let us know how many of these cases he’s used in his book. He identifies very few cases – no more than a half dozen – in the text, and then he makes some generalizations at the end of the book. I can not tell that those generalizations have come from any other cases. Everything seems to rely on the half dozen or so he’s presented in his book. It’s a very different thing to ask us to believe his interpretation if it is based on a half dozen, rather than seventy-six, cases. Then there is the problem of asking us to believe what he and the other “percipients” (as he calls them) have received from the psychic sasquatches, when the psychic ‘squatches do nothing to prove that they are what they say they are. Once you’ve granted that polymorphing trickster spirit-beings exist, you no longer have any basis for a claim that you saw and conversed with a bigfoot. In fact, you don’t know what it was that happened to you. This thought doesn’t seem to have occurred to Mr. Lapseritis. I won’t say that nothing happened to Lapseritis (who claims hundreds of encounters with pyschic sasquatches over twenty years) or his other percipients, but I won’t go so far as to say they conversed with bigfoot. I have to shrug and say that I don’t know what happened.

But let us stipulate that Lapseritis does actually talk to psychic sasquatches. Even if we do that, we have problems that a careful thinker ought to have seen. For no matter what the truth of the matter, one striking fact is that the message conveyed by the psychic sasquatches in Lapseritis’ book turns out to be identical to the message conveyed to abductees – we are ruining our planet and we had better stop it. You might stop right here and roll your eyes, but remember, we stipulated so we've got to go along with the flow.

Ok, but now my question would be – why are you psychic 'squatches telling me that? In Lapseritis’ case, it’s a poignant question since he’s not a well known author and the number of people he could reach with his message is pretty well insignificant. At least with John Mack or Bud Hopkins, you’d have a chance at reaching many readers, but why a nearly anonymous holistic healer and bigfoot researcher? The question doesn't seem to have occurred to the author. It's just one more little bit that does not make sense, and for me this suggests that (granting these things described have actually happened) whatever the “psychic sasquatches” and their UFO buddies are doing, it’s not what they say they are doing. And a corollary to that would be, whoever they are, it’s not who they say they are. But Lapseritis never appears to think about it critically, he just takes them at their word. Alright, we're almost done stipulating now.

For one last thing that appears to me to be a contradiction is that, according to their report of themselves, psychic sasquatches are so advanced that their interaction with humans is limited to when they want to have it. When they don’t want to be seen by us, they simply slip into another dimension. And since they can read our thoughts, they sense us coming long before we can get close to them. They don’t want us to know about them, so we don’t. Well here’s the contradiction – how have we gotten any evidence of their existence, then? If the sasquatches have an answer for this question we don't know what it would be, because no one has ever asked them.

What you would have liked to have seen Lapseritis do is actually ask these questions of the psychic sasquatches themselves, but the questions don’t appear to have occurred to him. He takes their word for everything uncritically, and that’s why, even granting that these things have happened as he says they have, we can’t take his word for what they are.

Take a deep breath, we are finished with our stipulation exercises.

But we've only begun exposing the flaws in this book. We get plenty of evidence that Lapseritis is not a careful thinker. As an example, he cites “Scientist Dan A. Davidson of Arizona” and his three theories of how sasquatch could do some of the things Lapseritis has reported them to have done. After he has cited the theories, Lapseritis says,


"Sasquatch are very adept at mind control but rarely use it. More often, they dematerialize using methods #2 and #3.. So, I strongly concur with Mr. Davidson and feel strongly that all three areas of projected hypnosis and quantum physics are being utilized as an innate psychic survival mechanism by these clever nature-beings."

The trouble here is that Davidson has offered theories, or “ways of explaining” what has been described, he has not offered facts. But Lapseritis treats them as if they are proven facts once he has introduced them, as if the fact that they can explain the events means that that’s the way things happened. This is a logical fallacy of the most elementary sort, and no real scientist would make this mistake. This is a mark against our ability to have faith in Lapseritis’ judgement, which is at issue since Lapseritis has asked us to take his word for the accounts he has offered.

He makes similar mistakes elsewhere in his book, illustrating that it’s not an isolated slip-up. For instance, he refers to a fossil in Utah that looks very much like a shoe print, and perhaps a second. I’ve seen the pictures of the clearest one and I think it does look something like a shoe-print, but it isn’t perfect, and I can imagine ways in which it might have been made without the agencies of a cobbler and a foot. But Lapseritis says the fossil “umistakably shows the fossil remains of two human footprints from a prehistoric man wearing shoes!” This is another example of, “It could be, so it is!”

If that’s the way that Lapseritis thinks, how can we trust him to have been careful enough with the evidence he won’t directly show us?

I’ll give one more example of bad logical thinking, and then I’ll leave Lapseritis alone. In a listing of attributes the psychic sasquatch might possess, he includes levitation and teleportation. For levitation, he can offer only scant evidence – one witness saw a sasquatch jump over a creek and it “seemed to glide” to the other side. Why that would be evidence for levitation as opposed to, say, flight, I don’t know. And for teleportation, Lapseritis says,


"Teleportation, transporting the entire physical body from one dimension to a different geographical location, is rarely reported, but might happen frequently with some or all sasquatches."

At least he didn’t say it did happen this time.

There is more that I could bring up to illustrate that Lapseritis is not really a scientist, at least under any standard definition of that word, nor any kind of critical thinker, but these examples should suffice. Having made the point doesn’t mean that what Lapseritis reports in his book never happened, but it does put Lapseritis in the terrible bind of having shown himself to be an unreliable reporter – not because of outright lies, but because we can’t trust him to know the difference between what might be and what is. And since he made the issue of trust crucial by withholding the evidence we might have used to verify what he says, he renders his work valueless to researchers.

*Reprinted with permission from Dbdonlon*

July 12, 2006

Men in Bigfoot Research, Scott Herriott

If you are a member of the Bigfoot Forums, you come across many personalities, and you may be very surprised who you come across. When I first began reading the Bigfoot Forums I kept seeing the username Yetifan. Who is this I wonder?

Fast forward to the 2005 Texas Bigfoot Conference. On my second day I was introduced to Scott Herriott a/k/a "Yetifan", and I was amazed. Not only is Scott a very intelligent guy - he has to be about the funniest person I have met in my life. I never really had a chance to talk to Scott at the conference, only because everytime he opened his mouth, I was laughing too hard. Dont let his sense of humor fool you - Scott Herriott is a walking book of information on the Patterson/Gimlin Film. I have read his many posts on this subject, and while I have a different opinion, I respect his knowledge on this subject.

Scott has also been very open about the fact that he has had a sighting himself. In fact, I remember seeing the video of his sighting on television - long before I ever knew who he was on the Bigfoot Forums website, or even before I was an active researcher. I have always been impressed by his down to earth way of approaching his own encounter. While he does have a video of the experience, he still questions what exactly happened.

I am very honored that Scott agreed to this interview, and I can not thank him enough. If you do not know Scott Herriott - you really should. :)

Men in Bigfoot Research Scott Herriott a/k/a "Yetifan"

Question: Please tell the readers about yo

Scott Herriott: Born and raised in the San Fernando Valley in Southern California. Went to Cal State Northridge and the University of Leeds in England for college. My major was Religious Studies (natural progression in to all things Bigfoot :)) Find the entire phenomenon of Bigfoot fascinating...the anthropological, sociological, psychological....great, great topic. I love to fact, I'm currently shooting my third documentary on the Pacific Crest Trail this year (

Question: How long have you been active i
n the field of Bigfoot research?

Scott Herriott: I would say since '86 when I saw a story on CNN concerning some bridge builders up in the High Sierra who drove out in the middle of the night because they heard and saw something upright screaming at them. The next year I went to the same general area...been pretty much been hooked ever since.

Was interested in the subject as a w
ee lad but as far as actively getting out and checking things out, that story was the genesis.

Question: What has been your primary focus, in this field of study? Please explain.
Scott Herriott: In a nutshell, whether or not these alleged beings actually exist. Everything else is secondary to me. My belief is that they do coupled with an equal belief that there's also a truckload of B.S. and misinterpretation associated with the phenomenon.

Question: Are you active in any Organized Groups, or are you Independant? Or Both?

Scott Herriott: Was involved with the longer.

Question: What do you think about the growing numbers of women becoming active in this field?

Scott Herriott:
I think it's great. I am of the belief that a woman has a better chance of potential long-term interaction with our alleged hirsute friends due to, let's say, less testosterone flowing through their veins....less threatening, gentler. Look at the history of Goodall and Fossey.

Question: How did you become involved in the search for this undocumented North American Primate?

Scott Herriott: I suppose, like a lot of others, having watched TV specials when I was a kid. Have always found it fascinating ever since I can remember.

Question: Have you had a sighting? If so ple
ase explain.

Scott Herriott: I believe I have. Can I say with absolute certainty? No. But I'm currently 99.87965 percent sure... :)

Following a sighting report I found out about in Sept. of '92, myself and the father of one of the two kids who had the sighting took a 1 1/2 - 2 hour trek up the hill, at the base of which, the kids had the sighting at. Near the top, we noticed, low down, and about 40 feet up the hill from us (at that point the hill had flattened out from around 40 degrees most of the way up to around 10-15 degrees) was this darkness, part of which we could tell was a fallen tree. Within that darkness were two big brown eyes. After looking at them for about 10 minutes (slow head apparent blinking... wasn't acting like any bear or large animal in the woods I'd ever seen) we decided to get closer to try and get a better look and that's when..coupled with an apparent eye dilation...a very distinct reddish glow appeared. Within a span of about 10 secs...the dilation decreased, then occurred again. As I've told others, it approximated, I would say, about 2/3 the intensity of an Exit sign in a darkened movie theatre. It was freaky.

That's when we decided we would seperate, working on the theory that it, whatever it was, would feel we might be trying to surround it and then
, hopefully, it would move off in another direction and then we would, hopefully, get a better view and subsequent video of it. I began moving to the right of Daryl and got about 10-15 away from him when I heard him wheel around and begin shooting. To say the least, he was freaking out. He was pointing and talking about what he was seeing. He described to me later that, peripherally, he saw something big kinda sidestepping out of the general area we were shooting previously that had the eyes. He then locates it in the view finder (it had stopped moving by then) and he taped for about 30 seconds. The camera then went limp in his hand and he began crying. Now, remember, at this point, in this thick of foliage, if you move just a few feet, your perspective completely changes. So while he was taping I couldn't see what he was seeing. But it was clear he was reacting to something. When we got back down the hill and popped the video in the tv that's when I saw what the gif illustrates. It's on camera the whole time. The head tilts out twice within the time period he shot. The following day we went back up the hill and, in my opinion, the area where the eyes were was too small too accomodate the humanoid form Daryl caught on video shortly thereafter.

Now, I'm as susceptible to a well-orchestrated hoax as the next guy, but I saw friggin' glowing red eyes! I'm supposed to believe that that 1) somebody had a fake swaying set of eyes with lights set up? and 2) If somebody in some type of suit was wa
iting alllll the way up the hill, they were able to stand next to another relatively big animal (the eyes) and not scare it away? Plus, Daryl didn't lead us all the way up the hill, I did a lot of the leading. So, what I believe probably happened was that a smaller squatch, hearing us head up this gnarly hill that probably hadn't been visited by humans in God knows how long, was curious. We happened to see it and Mom, Dad, or Big Bro. was closeby in the super thick stuff (a lot of rhodedendron) doing the ninja thing. But when we made the potentially threatening move of seperation, it did what a lot of big mammals do, it got between a young one and a potential threat.

That next day we returned up the hill and roughly 30 feet behind whatever was standing there we found an approximately 25 foot long and 15 foot wide area that had been clearly matted down by some type of animal. It r
eminded me of a gorilla nest...a nice little fortress near the top of a hill.

I've run through every scenario I can think of, and the above makes the most sense to me. And again, I know it's not, and nor do I of
fer it up as, proof.

Question: Did you even think this animal could exist before your "sighting"?

Scott Herriott: Yes, primarily based on the sheer volume of sightings reported over the years.

Question: Is their anything about your own sighting, that you still think about today?

Scott Herriott: Oh, I definately still think about it. Contemplating whether or not a hoax or a misinterpretation was involved. But I, personally, put the odds of that being the case at incredibly low knowing that I definately saw an animal whose eyes glowed red.

Question: And now, did having a "sighting" change anything about
what you thought previously?

Scott Herriott:
Nope. Just kinda confirmed it.

Question: You are very vocal in the debate on the Patterson/Gimlin Film - do you think the film is authentic? If so, why? If not, Why?

Scott Herriott:
I lean fairly strongly toward the film being a hoax. (the following is taken from a post I made about the subject at Bigfoot Forums)

After being interested with this phenomenon for many years and reading everything I could get my hands on concerning Patterson, my opinion of him is basically this: He's the exact type of guy who would try to pull off a hoax of this alleged magnitude. He was sly, streetsmart, creative, apparently played fast and loose with the truth with others on many other words, he was a bit of a lovable rogue who, I believe, genuinely believed there to be such things as Bigfeet but who wasn't above, uh, padding the case as it were.

There are many on this list who feel that Long's book is complete rubbish and I would argue that that opinion is basically coming from a position where the belie
ver of that has long believed and/or is emotionally invested in what they perceive to be the validity of the Patterson film showing an unclassified primate...and, also, that they may have never actually read the entire book (RogerKni withstanding wink.gif ) Long's book is certainly flawed in many places...first and foremost, that he conclusively proved it was a hoax. He didn't. But where the book helped sway me towards leaning towards the dark side, as it were, is in the sheer volume of people who actually knew Patterson and from those portraits (unless, of course, one wants to argue Long fabricated them all) indicating a talented, mischievious, and, at times, legally reckless guy.

Also, just after Greg Long's book came out, I called up Phillip Morris and talked to him for about an hour. As credible as Gimlin seems on TV Morris seemed just as sincere when he told me that he definately sold an ape costume to a guy named Patterson from Yakima in 1967 and that he talked to him not once, but twice on the phone when Patterson called back and wanted advice on how to make the suit look better to "play a joke" on someone. Personally, I lean toward the theory that Patterson eventually scrapped the Morris suit and then built his own with some of the knowledge he had gained.

Also, when I saw the picture of one of the stagecoaches Patterson made by himself, without blueprints, I thought....hmmm...he was talented with his hands...good drawer as well. One, I believ
e, really has to read Long's book in its entirety with an open mind and not be swayed, beforehand, by those who find it hard to contemplate the possibility it was faked and/or because they don't like Long. I don't like Long all that much either. But that doesn't mean everything or even the majority of the things he documents in the book are false.

Then you have the story that Gimlin himself has said on tape about Patterson bringing some guy on stage in the south and telling a big crowd of people it was Gimlin, when, in fact, it wasn't. If a guy is
willing to do that, what else is he willing to try?

As for the film itself, I agree that it looks cool and unique and, if a hoax, is certainly not a hack job. But I don't see anything that I could say is necessarily muscle movement. I see movement. But how can one know its not padding moving underneath giving the illusion of muscle movement? This is where experimentation needs to come in, not idle speculation. Hopefully, soon, Dfoot's suit he's been working on (for not a lot of money and with materials available in 1967...also keeping in mind those are up close and shot with a digital camera...not 16mm film) will be able to be filmed with the exact type of camera, lens, approximate distance and lighting conditions, etc. and then, I think, we'll all get a better idea how possible it was for Patterson to have perhaps hoaxed the film. So far, the still shots are quite a lot of people at this site have noted. Also, it seems to me that it's rarely taken into serious consideration that the film was shot on 16mm film and not, li
ke movie apes have been, on 35mm film. Objects, therefore, are not as sharp and are, therefore, open to much more speculation as to what is actually being seen. Again, hopefully, experiments with DFoot's suit (or others) should give us a better idea than just imagining what could or could not be the case.

As far as the prints are concerned, they need to be experimented with as well.

Can Laverty's photo be duplicated by a guy wearing a suit? Can they be duplicated with a couple of false feet? Hopefully, we can find that out. But to assume it can't be done without experimentation is presumptuous. If tube's experiments had never been done, I'm sure many on this list would be absolutely convinced that certain markings on foot casts had to be dermal ridges.

As far as other testimony from Patterson the Argosy interview with Ivan Sanderson he's quoted as saying they tracked the animal for "three miles". Roger says there was a bent stirrup. Gimlin says no. Gimlin seems very believable but he himself invokes
the name of Ted Bundy when talking to Long about how you just can't tell with some people. However, ultimately, testimony, pro or con for the film is some of the weakest evidence since we simply can't know for sure who's lying or telling the truth at any particular time about what. So the main thing is the film itself. Can it be reasonably duplicated? If so, I don't think, for me anyways, it would be absolute proof...but, rather, it would demonstrate that claims that the film has to be or is probably a sasquatch would be presumptuous at best and insincere and misleading or delusional at worst. Only time will tell.

Question: What is your opinion on the "Stabilized" version of the Patterson/Gimlin Film?

Scott Herriott:
I think it looks great but it doesn't add anything of quantitative substance to the debate. I see nothing that would automatically rule out a guy in the suit.

Question: Do you think its possible to create a suit - as authentic looking as what we see in the Patterson/Gimlin Film?

Scott Herriott:
Yep. Because no one has seriously attempted it (coupled with all the elements involved in the '67 filming), doesn't mean it can't be done.

Question: Do you think there is one piece of footage or picture, that has not been analyzed enough?

Scott Herriott:
None that I'm aware of.

Question: Are you active in Field Research?

Scott Herriott: Not as much as I used to. What with the explosion of Internet popularity, I find it harder to discern what might be considered a legitimate sounding encounter.

Question: One piece of equipment you think is the most important?

Scott Herriott:
An open-minded yet scientifically-oriented brain :)

Question: Do you ever talk to witnesses or take statements?

Scott Herriott:
I have, on occasion, in the past. Not in a few years though.

Question: Most people have one Report that "Stands Out" in their minds, is there a report that still "stands out" for you?

Scott Herriott:
I was and still am impressed with William Roe's story from Canada many years back. The detail in his account of an apparent female sasquatch chomping on leaves while he was laying low in the bushes doing some story.

Question: What do you think is the most important question to ask a witness?

Scott Herriott:
"Tell me what you saw and/or heard"

Question: Do you have any advice for a new researcher?

Scott Herriott:
At all times, strive to remain objective. So often in the years I've been involved with this phenomenon I've seen time and time again, presumptions creep into opinions which then become full-blown certainties. Always seriously consider other options as to what happened. Sure, it's cool to think there are relic hominids about...but that doesn't mean every story is necessarily dealing with one.

Thank you Scott!!!! :)

Dermal Ridges, Flexion Creases and Casting Artifacts

*Photo of a human fingerprint*


1.An object produced or shaped by human craft, especially a tool, weapon, or ornament of archaeological or historical interest.

2. Something viewed as a product of human conception or agency rather than an inherent element: "The very act of looking at a naked model was an artifact of male supremacy" (Philip Weiss).

3. A structure or feature not normally present but visible as a
result of an external agent or action, such as one seen in a microscopic specimen after fixation, or in an image produced by radiology or electrocardiography.

4. An inaccurate observation, effect, or result, especially one resulting from the technology used in scientific investigation or from experimental error: The apparent pattern in the data was an artifact of the collection method.

Dermal Ridges:

A fingerprint is an impression normally made by ink or contaminants transferred from the peaks of friction skin ridges to a relatively smooth surface such as a fingerprint card. These ridges are sometimes known as "dermal ridges" or "dermal papillae". The term fingerprint normally refers to
impressions transferred from the pad on the last joint of fingers and thumbs, though fingerprint cards also typically record portions of lower joint areas of the fingers (which are also used to effect identifications). Friction skin ridges are not unique to humans, however, and some species of primate also have friction skin ridges on "fingers" and paws in configurations sometimes similar to human friction ridge skin. Some new-world monkeys also have friction ridge skin on their tails, possibly associated with use of their tails for gripping during climbing, and the knuckle-walking great apes have friction ridge skin on the dorsal surfaces of their fingers. Friction skin ridges on humans are commonly believed to provide traction for grasping objects. In the over 100 years that fingerprints have been examined and compared, no two areas of friction ridge skin on any two fingers or palms (including between identical twins) have been found to have the same friction ridge characteristics.

Flexion Crease:

A permanent crease in the skin on the flexor aspect of a movable joint.

Over the last year or better there has been a debate going on as to whether items seen on the Onion Mountain cast are dermal ridges and flexion creases - or casting artifacts. It is my opinion, and always has been, that we must police ourselves. Matt Crowley has been doing excellent work in this respect. He has been doing work to determine the difference and if it's possible whether these items on the Onion Mountain cast are in fact casting artifacts, or as Jimmy Chilcutt says, dermal ridges and flexion creases. (Hope that made sense, lol)

I became involved in this debate last year at the TBRC 2005 Bigfoot Conference in Jefferson Texas, when a researcher asked me to look at a copy of the Onion Mountain cast. He then explained to me the debate that was ongoing at that time. I studied the cast for a while, but one thing stood out to me - and I couldnt figure it out, so I said to this researcher" Well, what I want to know is why on the heel of the cast and near the ball of the foot - Im not seeing the same "overlapping" (for lack of a better word) that I am seeing on the sides of the cast." If the side of the foot is showing this, I should be seeing it, where the thickness is the same, and I am not. Plaster of Paris I have discovered in my years of working with it - is very consistant, if you have a mistake in one spot - it will "follow through" in other areas where the conditions are the same. If this "overlapping" on the edges of the cast are a mistake by the person making the cast, we should be seeing this elsewhere too, not just on the sides. I see none at the toes, or at the ball or at the heel.

Well, he then said, "Come with me, I want you to tell this to Dr. Meldrum, and Matt Crowley" my immediate response? "NO, Im not telling these people nothing", lmao. After a few minutes of coaxing - I was talked into having these conversations.

Fast forward 7 months later - there is still no answer to my question. Matt Crowley agrees with my opinion on this, yet he has no explanation - and he cannot duplicate it either.

Matt Crowley did some early tests with Plaster of Paris, but he quickly moved on to Hydrocal and Ultracal. I have been a bit frustrated by this, as the initial test is about the Onion Mountain cast. I asked a number of people if they knew exactly what casting cement, the Onion Mountain cast was made with, and no one could say for sure, so I recently fired off an email to the man who would know - John Green, and he did, in fact, state the Onion Mountain cast was made with Plaster of Paris. It's my opinion if you are working to prove or disprove something - you should be as "true" to the original work as possible.

If you all remember, I did earlier castings using Plaster of Paris, for my very first casts I posted here on this blog. I noticed then that when the cast had finished "cooking" and I was able to measure - there was a full inch difference in the size from that of the actual track, this confused me as to why. I said nothing until recent discussions and found out that Plaster of Paris does expand with increases in temperatures and moisture content of the soil.

I never disputed that Plaster of Paris is a less than an excellent casting cement - but it does pick up detail.

The Challenge....

Matt Crowley recently challenged me to do these experiments myself and I accepted his challenge. I have no problem accepting that "artifacts" do indeed exist on casts.. He has proven that to me and what to keep my eyes open for. What I do not agree with is his assertion that because of his work regarding the "Onion Mountain cast" there is little to anything in the arguments by Jimmy Chilcutt that these are in fact dermal ridges or flexion creases. He has not proven that to me. I do not agree that simply because you have "artifacts" then all noted dermal ridges and flexion creases are "artifacts". Each noted dermal or flexion crease should be evaluated separately.

So, I took his challenge, but as stated earlier, I decided to remain true to the actual cast in dispute. I couldn't just "zip on over" to my local pottery store and pick up volcanic ash as Matt suggested, but I did purchase the next best thing - Tricalcium Phosphate or "bone ash." Bone ash has the same consistency and weight of volcanic ash. *WARNING* if you attempt this, buy appropriate face protection.. As this is some nasty stuff. I breathed in a lot of this bone ash, and this is not a pleasant experience, and it doesn't taste good either... :(

Ok, here is what I have so far. I will do future postings with more pictures and test results.

I am in no way attempting to say Matt Crowleys work is less than EXCEPTIONAL, I am simply working to show IF, in fact, dermal ridges and flexion creases can be cast using Plaster of Paris, if certain conditions create a better chance for that happening, and how that can relate back to the possibility that the items being pointed out by Jimmy Chilcutt could be exactly what Mr. Chilcutt says.

I always ask people to draw their own conclusions so these are the results I have to date.

Accepting the Challenge...

The first cast was done in dry Tricalcium Phosphate (sorry for the mistake in my earlier post) This is a dry material and has the consistency and feel of fine ash.. Breathing it is not fun. I did two castings in the Tricalcium Sulfate, one of my foot dry, and one with my foot after soaking it in water for one hour. The second test, I felt, was important because the animal we are looking for does not wear shoes or foot protection of any kind.

This is what I found.

On dry substrate dry foot track size length 9 inches, width 3 inches. No change in size noted after cast was dried. This is true to my findings of size with my first practice cast discussed earlier. I did one pour, but did not pour in the center of the cast, I simply put the casting agent in by hand, in a method similar to the splash technique as my question deals with the presence of dermal ridges and flexion creases.

*Cast one dry Tricalcium Phosphate, dry foot.

*Results -- Flexion creases and dermal ridges

*Casting Material: Plaster of Paris

As you can see, flexion creases are visible. I think this is because of the lack of pressure in the substrate- as pressing down firmly sent my foot all the way to the pan containing the Tricalcium Phosphate.

I also did not mix the Plaster of Paris thick. I instead used a thin mixture as I always do.

In a later post I will post pictures I took of my foot - in weightbearing and non weightbearing positions as I think this is important in regard to what we could be seeing on the side of the foot.

I think the ridge we see on the side of the foot is the actual spreading of tissue, skin and fatty tissue when the foot has full body weight applied, but as with all of my comments this is but one theory.

Picture 1. Arch of right foot/noted Flexion Creases

Picture 2. Heel of right foot/noted dermal ridges

to be continued....

*Join in the discussion at*

July 5, 2006

Interview with Grand Cherokee a/k/a Gerry Matthews

Grand Cherokee, as he is known on the Bigfoot Forums, is actually none other than Jerry Matthews, creator of West Coast Sasquatch.

I have always found his comments to be straight forward and honest. He speaks his mind, and is always willing to offer good advice to a new researcher. I enjoyed discussing these issues with Gerry as he was honest, and really discussed how he feels, regarding these questions, and his thinking is logical and intelligent. I have met many in this field of research who are very intelligent, Gerry is no exception.

Gerry also has a fantastic sense of humor, he has made me laugh too many times to count.

I hope to have future discussions with Gerry on this blog. I appreciate his honesty and his no nonsense approach to this research. I have come to really respect Gerry, if that means anything coming from a new person in this, he is just one of those people I know I could research with and be taken seriously. He has been supportive and full of good advice for me. The physical demands in the field are hard enough - who needs all the additional stuff.

I would like to thank Gerry for granting this interview, it was a real honor and pleasure for me, and I hope to continue this discussion in the near future. :)

Interview with Gerry Matthews

Question: Please tell the readers about yourself.

Gerry Matthews: I am a transplanted Easterner and I still retain my accent. Came to British Columbia in 1980 and set down roots in the Lower Mainland area. But, town by town, I subtly moved away from Vancouver and out into the Fraser Valley which is where I now call home.

I spent a good number of years as a lineman for the telephone company, but left to start my own business about ten years ago. I am an avid reader on most any subject, and have also written articles for kayaking magazines.

The closet writer in me still has one completed manuscript for a novel, which is 'part one' of a fantasy trilogy sitting at the bottom of my file cabinet, along with a completed stage play and a current screen play for a TV drama about Sasquatch Investigator/Researchers. Will anything come of them? Who knows? But there you have it.

Question: Are you a member of any organized group(s) or are you an independent researcher, or both?

Gerry Matthews: I would say that an independent researcher would best describe me. But what I research is the Sasquatch Phenomenon, not just the creature alone. Lets face it. We don't know anything about Sasquatch from which to be able to do research, do we? We can speculate till the cows come home, but that is it.

No. I am equally as interested in the people involved in the whole scene , whether they be armchair researchers, or researchers out in the field, or people writing about those researchers out in the field, or those making some kind of living selling their wares, artwork, running campgrounds, etc.

However, I did see a niche for British Columbia in the Sasquatch information highway and, after a meeting with John Green, I rushed home and created West Coast Sasquatch and the website, in about two weeks.

Before that there was nothing coming out of British Columbia on a large scale by way of the Internet, telling the story about the people who live here and who pursue this phenomenon.

Through John Green, I met Chris Murphy, who was a huge amount of help in forwarding information to me as I needed it. Through Bushman, I tracked down Thomas Steenburg and through him became involved in the British Columbia Scientific C
ryptozoology Club and made the acquaintance of John Kirk.

Everyone involved with West Coast Sasquatch is an affiliate who does their own researching. But we share and come together.. under that name.. for some kind of common good. We also research as a group.. whatever the situation warrants, we are flexible. And more than that, we are friends.

Question: How long have you been active in the field of bigfoot research?

Gerry Mathews: Like many, I was amazed at the P/G film stills, which appeared in Argosy Magazine. I was only a teenager at the time and they enthralled me, and scared the crap out of me. I thanked God that there was nothing like that in my part of the country! And soon after that, I got a dog eared copy of the Dahinden/Don Hunter book and read it in one sitting. (There have been a lot of books since!) But 'ol Squatch is pretty scarce on the east coast.. especially when you live on an island.. so my education had to wait for a number of more years until I came out to BC.

Who or what, got me actively involved? I would have to say meeting with John Green in his home. I consider him to be no less then a National Treasure. No wild eyed romantic there, just a soft voice of reason and logic. If not for that meeting ( which was doubly terrifying because I had promised Bipto that I would record it, so he could transcribe it onto the Bigfoot Research Project website. ) we probably would not be having this discussion.

Poor foolish me.. there I was in John Green's house. It would have been enough just to have met with him and have him sign my shirt or something.. but noooo.. I also wanted to interview him, as well.. for others to read!!! Pretty arrogant on my part, but, I survived and there was no going back after that.

Question: Have you noticed any changes in this field of research over the years?

Gerry Matthews: You know.. after being away from the Sasquatch scene for a couple of decades or so, I thought I would investigate the latest news by way of the Internet, I was saddened to discover that there was nothing new in the way of evidence. Dahinden's book is just as timely today as it was back then. Little has happened. Maybe the Skookum Cast, or Glen Thomas' rock digging family down in Oregon were interesting items but that is about it. It is over 30 years after the fact and people are still kiyi-ing over the P.G. film.

About the only.. "that really made you sit up didn't it".. type of event, was the implosion of the BFRO. The people involved are becoming more interesting than the Sasquatch itself, but maybe that has always been the way. For instance, take 'Sasquatch Apparitions'... great book.. if you see it on EBAY grab it up.. Barbara Bosson wrote it.. gives you the real scoop on Green, Dahinden, Byrnes,.. Pacific Northwest Expedition.. she was there and she pulls no punches! The people who follow squatch are, in many cases, just as colorful as the beast.

So, in answer to your question, nothing has really changed..except possibly some people'0s attitudes about not doing what has not worked in the past.

Question: What has been your primary focus, in this field of study?

Gerry Matthews: A higher standard of evidence!

Please explain.

In the Sasquatch research world, there are too many incidents of possibilities becoming assumptions and then getting somehow translated into fact.

Once something, which is purely speculation, gets magically turned into a fact... then you cannot un-ring that bell.

A sample transgressor would be..alleged Sasquatch (vocalizations) sound files. No one has a clue as to what they are.. but someone comes up with the idea that these noises are not being made by any known animal... so lets assign them to Sasquatch. It will be up to the skeptics to prove it wrong.

I wrote the outline for a Sasquatch field guide and there was an entire section having to do with the procurement of evidence, how to handle it, and where to bring it for analysis, etc! It was up to those people more knowledgeable than myself to fill in the information! I left it at S.R.I. many moons ago, I hope someone there picked it up and continued with it.

It would be a very cool thing to have a pocketbook that could lead you from your front door, and tell you what to look for, and if you should find it.. what to do with it, and where you then take it.... and have all of these published steps agreed upon by people who have spent a lot of time out in the field. So I really hope someone there is still working on that.

Follow up question: But, don't you think its important to keep a possible vocalization a possible - until whatever is making the vocal is captured on tape, and that can be verified?

Gerry Matthews:
Well, yes.. if you love a mystery and want to find out what is making a certain sound... sure. However, in my personal opinion.. there is no such thing as a possible Sasquatch vocalization. It either is.. or it isn't! If you cannot prove that it is..then why on earth put it out there as such, to begin with?

This would stop the speculation circle at the start. That is where one person says it is possible...., another assumes that they know what they are talking about and agrees with the first p
erson.. and through a certain type of magic.. you now have a new fact floating about that others buy into, and once it transforms into such a thing... it takes a lot of persistence to bring it back to what it originally was and what it may eventually be proven to be..... only an interesting noise made by some known forest creature. But even then.. you will have people say.."Yeah, but I bet it was actually Sasquatch mimicking that creature to fool people!"

I have any number of strange noises on my computer.. are any of them Sasquatch? Who knows? But I am not going to be the one to infer they might be. When someone videos a Sasquatch making a noise.. then you will have a Sasquatch vocalization.

: What keeps you asking questions?

Gerry Matthews:
Too many sightings. Odds are that there must be one that is not a mis-identification..but an actual encounter! Footprints in the darnest places? It is always the footprints.

Question: What do you think about the growing numbers of women becoming active in this field?

Gerry Matthews: A different perspective is what is probably needed to solve this. If their 'significant other' is also involved.. win, win!

Question: Have you had a sighting? If so please explain.

Gerry Matthews: I have not had a sighting. If I did, I would have to take off my skepticals and put them away.

Follow up question: Does not having your own visual sighting ever discourage you?

Gerry Matthews:
Actually, that is a very good question, but it is like asking a fisherman why does he go out on a lake every afternoon when he never catches anything. I like the sport of it.

No matter what you read in forums and books, the fact is that very, very, very few people actually have, or will ever see a Sasquatch. I just find it to be a fascinating subject..... and if I should go to my grave not having seen one.. then I will be in very good company, and I will not be bitter.

But, if I am lucky enough to see one, what will I think? I do not know. Not everyone who has seen one thinks it was a good thing.

I remember Thomas Steenburg playing a tape for me in my cubby hole office in the basement. It was an interview that he did with a local woman who had a squatch walk out in front of her car. She sounded scared at the memory, and one could tell she was walking an emotional tight rope and she could slip any second. I felt sorry for her. Someday she may look back and think of it as an inspirational event. But for now, and probably for some years in the future, she will think of it as a glimpse into hell. Guess you got to be careful what you wish for, heh?

Question: One piece of equipment you think is the most important?

Gerry Matthews:
Your "God Given" common sense and logic. It will get you through anything.

Question: Most researchers have one report that "stands out" in their minds, is there a report that still "stands out" for you?

Gerry Matthews:
Ummmmmm... nope! Most of the reports that come my way are a few years old. Interesting anecdotal material, but a rather cold trail. There are a couple, though, which prod me to go research a certain area whenever I can.

Question: What questions would you like researchers to ask witnesses?

Gerry Matthews:
There was a questionnaire made up at S.R.I. when I was there, which is what could possibly be held up as a guide. I am sure that it is probably posted on their website. A lot of good people put it together.

Question: What you would like people to know about you.

Gerry Matthews:
That I am a sincere person, aside from that.. they can draw their own conclusions. :)

Question: Do you have any advice for a new researcher?

Gerry Matthews:
I guess just do that... Research! Read, read, read, long before you utter your first word on the subject to another person. Know how to back up any solid statement with sources. If people take you seriously, then they will treat you seriously.

Find someone in your area with some experience in the picky... with the Internet there will be an assortment to chose from.

Even hang out at the forums....

Try to find someone in your area who reflects your own standards to a great degree and make a friend.

First, second, and, And really make the attempt to talk to a person, on the phone, or face to face.. just use the computer as one tool for your research.. not your lone source!

And.. oh yeah! When this stops being fun... drop it. There are other equally beautiful mysteries out there.. if mystery is what you must have. Never let this take a toll on you, and strive not to lose friendships through conflicting opinions..... don't let the Squatch make a monkey out of you.