dermal ridges and casting artifacts Options

[Gigantofootecus]

Even if they are not an exact match I believe the totality of evidence suggests that the ridges seen on the Onion Mountain cast are casting artifacts and not evidence of a primate's dermal ridges.

I think you've nailed it. The Onion Mtn cast dermals look remarkably similar as far as patterning, scale and positioning on the cast. The slight differences could be attributed to the differing substrates. This combined with your other arguments strongly point to the dermals on the Onion Mtn cast as being artifacts. Green himself appears non-committal to their authenticity. A rather significant implication here is that this process is not exclusive to a volcanic ash substrate. Also, that it can happen in a more common medium such as natural soil. The next logical step would be to replicate these artifacts in casts similar to Green's in natural soil. Can-o-worms anyone?

This post has been edited by Gigantofootecus: Jul 20 2005, 12:17 PM

[Saskwatcher]

Yes, replication, REPLICATION ...REPLICATION !!!
The Double-Edged Sword of Science...it will either SUPPORT or DAMN your evidence.
I think that the best evidence of BF's existence is UNREPLICATABLE...certain casts (with or w/o dermals)...P/G Film....activities observed by RELIABLE Eyewitnesses....and, Native N. Am. Indian Culture & Artifacts....that's about all we got.....and, I think they can't be replicated or explained away.

[MadAxe]

One thing I notice in most of tube's casts is that the ridges all run in what seem to be more or less concentric rings away from the direction of the downforce applied during the casting process. Others seem to run more or less parallel to the large fissures created during casting.

This also seems to be present of some of the casts that are now being double-checked, but how many other casts do we have where the dermal ridges can be seen with more pronounced loops and whorls, that do not appear to follow this concentric pattern? (I'm looking at a few in Krantz's book: Fig. 33 on pg 74 and Fig. 35 on pg 75, in particular)

[Thigmo]

Just about the best thread I've seen on the BFF. Has anyone yet attempted to replicate tube's experiments with casting flow artifacts?

Thig

[scotto]

I agree, this thread is one of my favorites. Tube has taught us quite a bit!

I've heard there is at least one cast taken that shows "sweat pores" or something of that nature. I wonder if these are genuine or could be another casting anomaly?



(edited to add question)

This post has been edited by scotto: Sep 4 2005, 09:49 PM

[tube]

I've heard there is at least one cast taken that shows "sweat pores" or something of that nature. I wonder if these are genuine or could be another casting anomaly?



(edited to add question)

Grover Krantz went over this a fair bit in his book Big Footprints. Since my focus has mostly been on casting artifacts, I put any investigation of sweat pores on the "back burner". The primary reason I did this is simply that I do not yet have good enough optics to see my own sweat pores! I need to buy better loupes and such soon. Why would I need good optics? Because human sweat pores are really small.

Most of the tests I've done involve rather ideal substrates; fly ash, volcanic ash, or finely sifted natural soils. I've also made casts in potter's clay and Play-Doh, a highly underrated test medium. I can see tiny pits on my own dermal ridges on some of the casts with an 8X loupe but my problem is that I cannot yet match them to my own sweat pores.

There are several reasons to be skeptical of the whole sweat pore thing. First off, my tests involve clean skin and ideal test media. For Sasquatch, we have an animal that is walking barefoot all the time. Does natural soil mask detail as fine as sweat pores? Consider what the first step is when a person is fingerprinted. Well first I guess you take the handcuffs off, but then you clean the person's hands. Clearly, even the dirt on a human's hands can negatively effect fingerprinting. Imagine how much dirtier a Sasquatch foot would be.

Secondly, all casts have some amount of entrained air. All casts have at least some tiny bubbles which become tiny pits on their outer surfaces. Krantz claimed to be able to differentiate these from genuine sweat pores. Perhaps he was correct, or maybe he was engaging in wishful thinking.

So, sweat pores in Sasquatch casts? I don't know. I would propose that we should first establish without question that HUMAN sweat pores can be captured in ideal test substrates and then in casts. Then move on to testing whether HUMAN sweat pores can be captured in substrates in real world conditions then in casts. If this could be established, then it is not unreasonable to extrapolate to Sasquatch.

Before someone jumps on me, I'll just say it; I don't claim that Krantz was wrong, but I do not find his sweat pore demonstration definitive.

[Dudlow]

Stunningly informative, folks! Possibly the best Thread I've ever read! Keep 'em coming. Looks like we need to find a newer, better, jet-age casting material that sets up instantly without expansion or contraction. I wonder what NASA has collecting dust on the back shelf?
Dudlow

[tube]

Well, this weekend I finally did what I should have done some time ago; buy some better optics. I bought three loupes; a 10X, a 14X, and a 20X. The 10X and 20X were "introductory" models, and cost about 16 dollars each. The 14X was a Bausch and Lomb, and cost $56! I can tell the expensive one is better though, and I do not regret buying it.

With the 14X and 20X loupes I can clearly see the pores on my fingers. Now that I know what they look like and how big they are I examined two casts I made. I spent about an hour examining them with the 14X loupe. One was of my hand made in Play-Doh and the other was of my foot made in potters's clay. Both media were able to capture detail as fine as dermal ridges with extraordinary accuracy; I have no trouble finding and identifying the cores, loops, bifurcations, and deltas of my own skin in these casts. The substrates and Ultracal 30 casts can even capture detail as fine as the shape of the curves of my own dermal ridges. It's an interesting world down there!

So far, I'm not seeing any sweat pores. I am seeing a few pits which I believe are the result of bubbles. How do I know they are bubbles and not sweat pores? Because the pits are in the wrong place and they are the wrong shape and size. Sweat pores are located at the very crown of the ridge, and the pits I'm finding are located off to the sides of the ridges.

Am I ready to conclude that "sweat pores" in plaster casts are nothing but bubbles? No way. Based on what I have now, it's too soon to be conclusive. But I'm posting this here because it is something, and it is a useful preliminary finding. There are several possible interpretations as to what is going on:

1. I'm not seeing the sweat pores because the media are not sensitive enough.

2. I'm not seeing the sweat pores because the Ultracal 30 is not sensitive enough.

3. A combination of the previous two.

4. My technique is somehow flawed.

We also have to factor in that I'm looking at human sweat pores and not purported Sasquatch sweat pores. I have no idea how large the purported sweat pores are on the casts that Grover Krantz claimed contained them. I'm only able to test whether or not human sweat pores can be seen in cement casts. If we are going to be able to claim there is a difference between real sweat pores in cement casts and pits caused by bubbles as Grover Krantz claimed, we need to have a control cast that exhibits unambiguous sweat pores.

Tonight I'm going to make fingerprint impressions in generic Play-Doh and look to see if they can be seen in that medium before a cast is made.

I'll definitely run this by Jimmy Chilcutt when I see him.

[damndirtyape]

Matt... you might want to water down the Ultra-Cal a bit. Less thick casting material has better resolution. You should also make sure to rap the plaster in the bucket, on the rim preferably, to release any bubbles, then do the same for the cast after it is poured. I wouldn't use 100 degree water, try more like 50 degrees (this allows the plaster to run together and fill microscopic depressions more evenly before the chemical reactions begin). I would start with a little over 1/3 parts water to just under 2/3 plaster and mix it very good (it should run off your rubber gloves and not adhere to them). Sift the plaster into the water with your hands to judge the consistency as you mix.

Air bubbles in plaster should not look like the sweat pores Grover wrote about. Air bubbles have a very sharp edge around them, where the bubble actually burst, at least where the air/plaster interface is. On the surface of the substrate/plaster you can try using a light coating of release which works equally well in releasing surface bubbles, not too much though or you will actually get cracking, like the artifacts you are exploring only much more gross.

Your substrate might also have air leaks running through it, bubbling up under pressure, so it might be better to try making a splash coat of the surface first, before the heavy backup material. Or one light coat of sealer.

I have regularly attained surface resolution with Densite, Ultra-Cal and Hydrocal on the order of 0.010". I don't know if Grover ever mentioned just how big the pores were on the casts he was examining, but I would imagine that they would be bigger than our own. You can do the same kind of test by taking a piece of hair and laying it on the table you are casting on and splash it, making it thicker later, or better yet, on a piece of nylon cutting board, press a needle tip in several times in a known area and cast that.

All of this won't answer the question though of if it is possible in the filed. Good work and I will see you in Texas.

[tube]

I have regularly attained surface resolution with Densite, Ultra-Cal and Hydrocal on the order of 0.010".

Thanks for the suggestions. It could very well be that if I refine my technique I can attain resolution as fine as human sweat pores. I'm curious about the number 0.010". That would be one-hundredth of an inch. In another post of yours I remember seeing a resolution of 0.001" or one-thousandth of an inch. I'm betting the resolution is on the order of a thousandth of an inch rather than a hundredth of an inch.

I picked up a tidbit some time that I have not been able to verify; that the diameter of a normal human sweat pore is 50 micrometers. If we have 25.4 millimeters to the inch we have 25.4 micrometers to the thousandth of an inch. If the theoretical resolution of the casting cement is 25 micrometers then it should be able to capture detail at 50 micrometers.

[damndirtyape]

Right... 0.001" if laying down a graduated scale and casting over that (testing material for thermal expansion). Human hair is about 0.010". Cast the hair well enough and you should see details further down the scale on it with your loupe. Regular, organic detail, not artifacts.

50 microns would be about 0.002". That would be a razor cut/scratch across the hair. It's possible but you have to do a pretty good job. I don't think playdough can attain that much resolution.

[tube]

I finally had a chance to meet Jimmy Chilcutt at Craig Woolheater's Jefferson TX Sasquatch conference this last Saturday. We were able to sneak away into a classroom and take a good look at some test casts. This photograph is of Jimmy examining a test cast that exhibits quite large casting artifacts around the periphery. What I'm seeing in the test casts is that the smaller ridges are flatter while the larger ridges are rounder. This is also seen on Green's Onion Mountain cast. The major objection that Chilcutt has to the notion that the Onion Mountain cast ridges are artifacts is that the ridge peaks are flat. I had a loupe that we both used to examine the test cast in this picture.

At this point I honestly do not know the significance of this. As with any developing theory, new questions emerge.

1. We do not have the original Onion Mountain cast. The copies we have were made using latex molds. My understanding is that this is a highly accurate process. On the other hand, could the small inaccuracy lead to a subtle rounding of flat ridge peaks? I have no idea, but it is something that surely could be tested.

2. Thicker cement prior to pour seems to lead to bigger casting artifacts. So far, I've been examining the effect of thickened plaster that is a result of TIME i.e. letting the plaster "set up" a few minutes before pouring. Perhaps the solution is even more simple; perhaps the plaster was too thick because of an excessive plaster-water ratio. The effect of thick plaster as a result of incorrect plaster-water ratio should be investigated.

3. Up until now most of the tests I've done involve blob shaped test tracks. It is probably time to move to foot shaped test tracks. Melissa, one of the folks that posts on this board, questioned why the ridges on Green's cast are on the plantar surface and not the periphery, as we have seen on many of my test casts. Good question, and I don't have an immediate answer. My speculation is that it may have to do with the soil ridge between the ball and the toes forming a temporary "dam" while the plaster flowed into the track. Again, I think this is something that is testable.

4. It is probably time to start doing real-world test casts in real world soils.

5. It is possible that Chilcutt's finding is a damning flaw in the notion that casting artifacts are responsible for the surface textures on Green's cast. To test this we need to find out if ridge artifacts are capable of forming round ridge peaks.

Jimmy Chilcutt, Jeff Meldrum, Rick Noll and I all had a rather "intense" but not negative meeting Saturday night at the Jefferson conference. The consensus seems to be that sectioning of these test casts is the next logical step in order to study the shape of these ridges. As soon as I get back to Seattle I'm going to start doing that.

Attached image(s)

 

[Wildman]

Wow. I would have thought there would have been a more discernible difference than just rounded or flattened peaks. I would think that the differences between actual dermal ridges and casting artifacts would be quite a bit more obvious. If that is the only real difference, then proving that the rounding off of the peaks, or the sharpening them, can occur in casting, it may make dermal studies in casts up to this point, well, nearly worthless. I was really expecting Chilcutt to have several ways to rule out artifacts. This is an eye-opener.

I'm glad you were able to hash all of this out with Chilcutt, Noll, and Meldrum. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during those conversations.

[Yetifan]

Wildman wrote:

I'm glad you were able to hash all of this out with Chilcutt, Noll, and Meldrum. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during those conversations.

I was very fortunate to have been there and one thing I found interesting was when Chilcutt, when asked by someone if he planned to write a book, responded, in essence, that he felt he needed to learn more about the processes involved in casting, etc. before he felt comfortable doing so.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 21 2005, 04:33 PM

[Wildman]

Wildman wrote:



I was very fortunate to have been there and one thing I found interesting was when Chilcutt, when asked by someone if he planned to write a book, responded, in essence, that he felt he needed to learn more about the processes involved in casting, etc. before he felt comfortable doing so.

Well that's good to know.

[tube]

Flat ridge peaks are quite visible in test casts that have small ridges. The particular test cast in the previous photograph has much larger ridges. While I do not dispute Mr. Chilcutt's assesment that those ridge peaks are also flat, I was not able to see (or perceive) this feature, even with a loupe.

I'm hoping that we can section these test casts and then "print" them so that we can all take a carefull look at the ridge cross sections.

This photograph is of an illustration that Mr. Chilcutt drew on the chalkboard of the flat peak of one of the large casting artifact ridges.

Attached image(s)

 

[Wildman]

That seems like such a minor, minor detail. Especially when differentiating between dermal ridges and artifacts. Doesn't seem too reliable.

This post has been edited by Wildman: Oct 21 2005, 05:40 PM

[wolftrax]

That seems like such a minor, minor detail. Especially when differentiating between dermal ridges and artifacts. Doesn't seem too reliable.

Not when you consider that these are the ridges, the ridges make up the dermals or artifacts, and how they form in the minutest detail is important to fully addressing whether what we are seeing is a dermal or artifact. Test, test, and test again, that is science!

[Wildman]

Not when you consider that these are the ridges, the ridges make up the dermals or artifacts, and how they form in the minutest detail is important to fully addressing whether what we are seeing is a dermal or artifact. Test, test, and test again, that is science!

But when a dermal expert can only find one very slight difference in the appearance of the two, it makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us.

[wolftrax]

But when a dermal expert can only find one very slight difference in the appearance of the two, it makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us.

Not sure if I understand...

[mike2k1]

Not sure if I understand...

I agree...I'm not sure if I understand either.

[walkingcarpet]

He's saying that, for the rest of us, when the difference between the two is very slight, so that only an expert can find, it's that much more difficult.

[mike2k1]

He's saying that, for the rest of us, when the difference between the two is very slight, so that only an expert can find, it's that much more difficult.

That's why they are experts...

[wolftrax]

He's saying that, for the rest of us, when the difference between the two is very slight, so that only an expert can find, it's that much more difficult.

But the studies that will continue will help all to understand and identify what is real or a artifact. This is an amazing study we are witnessing.

[walkingcarpet]

I agree absolutely. Keep up the great work, tube.

[Wildman]

He's saying that, for the rest of us, when the difference between the two is very slight, so that only an expert can find, it's that much more difficult.

Ah wc... My own personal translator!

Yes, that is precisely it! The fact that a casting anomaly can so closely resemble a dermal ridge, and an expert in the field of dermal ridge study has to grab a loupe and look closer is, well, mind-boggling. I was really expecting Chilcutt to make a more "apples and oranges" comparison, so I'm shocked a bit. On the casts that Chilcutt has looked at and has found dermal ridges, was he looking for these flattened peaks?

This is some of the best research that has been performed in the history of sasquatchery, IMO. This is the kind of testing and review all evidence should be subjected to, regardless of the results. This is huge. Until further testing is done, how reliable are Chilcutt's observations on dermal ridges up to this point? If tube's testing shows that Chilcutt really can't tell the difference, what then?

All of this sits on whether a dermal ridge peak is flat or not.

[walkingcarpet]

I think Chilcutt is likely just being cautious, not jumping to conclusions. That's something else we could use a lot more of in this field. There's no reason to rush this--or any other--research. I'm looking forward to future updates with great interest.

[Wildman]

I think Chilcutt is likely just being cautious, not jumping to conclusions. That's something else we could use a lot more of in this field. There's no reason to rush this--or any other--research. I'm looking forward to future updates with great interest.

I agree. Taking the time to explore every angle before making a formal statement. What a refreshing change in this field!

[wolftrax]

On the casts that Chilcutt has looked at and has found dermal ridges, was he looking for these flattened peaks?

I will have to review the Willow Creek Symposium DVDs, but from what I recall he did.

Until further testing is done, how reliable are Chilcutt's observations on dermal ridges up to this point?  If tube's testing shows that Chilcutt really can't tell the difference, what then?

Now see, this is the thing that this test and study is NOT out to prove, Chilcutt's reliability. I've seen this time and time again, an authority on a science from outside the field brings that authority in the field, and might make a mistake, and then people consider the PERSON unreliable. Nobody is infallible, and shouldn't be expected to be. This isn't Chilcutt on trial. This is about the truth behind the dermal ridges and sasquatch, but it is also far more than that.

Last weekend I talked to a law enforcement officer about this very subject. I won't speak for him and hope he pipes in this conversation, but from what I understand this study affects the law enforcement field at large and how they use dermal ridge evidence.

That's the beauty of this field, how knowledge and techniques used out of the field come in and then lead back out, it is just so well rounded that way when the information is what is treated of most import, not the personalities involved.

All of this sits on whether a dermal ridge peak is flat or not.

The devil is in the details! From what I am understanding here, and please Tube correct me if I am wrong, the flat peaked ridges of the artifacts are the result of the plaster resting on the surface of the substrate while the canyons in between the ridges are caused by either the consistency of the casting material, heat, or the composition of the substrate and how it interracts with the casting material. While the dermal ridges have rounded peaks because of how the living beings skin and dermals push, spread, and then contract back leaving the substrate with an impression of an organic and round ridge.

This post has been edited by wolftrax: Oct 21 2005, 10:37 PM

[Teresa]

Oh good we're talking about tube's stuff. I didn't get to sit through all that, we had to leave before it was finished. I was fascinated at what I heard though!

[Wildman]

Now see, this is the thing that this test and study is NOT out to prove, Chilcutt's reliability. I've seen this time and time again, an authority on a science from outside the field brings that authority in the field, and might make a mistake, and then people consider the PERSON unreliable. Nobody is unfallible, and shouldn't be expected to be. This isn't Chilcutt on trial. This is about the truth behind the dermal ridges and sasquatch, but it is also far more than that.

I was not implying this was to be the case. What I was saying is that what Chilcutt has stated as fact about sasquatch dermal ridges up to this point may be in question, because we do not know whether he was looking for possible casting artifacts as the source. It is quite possible he didn't know that artifacts could so closely resemble dermal ridges, and gave them the once-over, but not much beyond that. I believe Chilcutt himself has said that he didn't document his early studies of alleged sasquatch track casts, so we don't know exactly what he was accepting as dermal ridge evidence. It isn't Chilcutt on trial. It's his findings up to this point.

[wolftrax]

I was not implying this was to be the case. What I was saying is that what Chilcutt has stated as fact about sasquatch dermal ridges up to this point may be in question, because we do not know whether he was looking for possible casting artifacts as the source. It is quite possible he didn't know that artifacts could so closely resemble dermal ridges, and gave them the once-over, but not much beyond that. I believe Chilcutt himself has said that he didn't document his early studies of alleged sasquatch track casts, so we don't know exactly what he was accepting as dermal ridge evidence. It isn't Chilcutt on trial. It's his findings up to this point.

Well, one step at a time We never know, after all the tests are done on all the casts, we may find at least one that defies any artifact possibility. Now wouldn't that be something?

[Wildman]

Well, one step at a time We never know, after all the tests are done on all the casts, we may find at least one that defies any artifact possibility. Now wouldn't that be something?

That would be, as the kids say, the shizznit.