More dermal experimentation, Split from "Dermal Ridges and Casting Artifacts" Options

[Melissa]

I came into this asking direct questions and delivering a direct point about water heating up from hot weather and the temperature Green stated in his book. When a relpy was given that Green emailed it was at least 90 degrees, I did not argue that. I did point out that 90 degrees would not have been the highest temperature possible, which we went back and forth on. When a temperature of 80 degrees was given with no support, I questioned that to get specifics. I received a reply to look for the answer myself, and my questions and points were interpreted as an attack. I answered all quesiotns asked of me. Nowhere in the body of those messages did I insult the person, despite being told I wasn't listening and that I was jumping all over the person, and had a weak argument. Only after I was told that I don't read, I don't make sense, I'm twisting words, baiting for a fight, etc. did I respond that Melissa did not match the conditions of either the OM cast or Tube's experiments, she didn't go the distance. She topped off at 80 degrees for both the substrate and the water, she did not reach the minimum given of 90 degrees or experiment with 100 degrees, and since Green gave both temps either one is possible, and since water does heat up in a container in high temperatures there is a good chance it was also at one of those temperatures.

The problem wolftrax - is that I answered your questions more than once, and you still continued to accuse me of avoiding your questions, or simply ignoring them. I can only tell you what I have found. Its really that simple. This should not get personal between you and I.

As for the temperature - again I do not have an issue with testing at 100 degrees.. As, that is what tube did. In my earlier work, heating the water to 100 degrees was not part of the experiments I was doing - as I was going by my email with Mr. Green and the information I had from Weather Underground and the various agencies I did speak with. No where did I find a temperature of 100 degrees associated with this area, during this month - and believe me I looked. You keep saying Air Temperature - well, Humidity can make it feel like 100 - when its only 80, I know this from living in Wisconsin for most of my life. Arizona residents are finally starting to know what Humidity is - and its not fun. But, you do not know what was discussed between tube and I - and I know exactly what he said to me. So, for you to insist his only reason for heating the water to 100 degrees based on what Tube read in a book - is absolutely wrong. Matt told me over and over again - that I needed to stop using Plaster of Paris and use Hydrocal instead - he also told me over and over again that if I wanted to get these casts done faster I needed to heat my water to 100 degrees - as that will make the set up time faster. I have never seen a box of hydrocal - so I must be telling the truth as DDA said himself - that is the recommended temperature for the water when using Hydrocal, and DDA says very clearly Matt initially started doing this for that very reason. I am not sure why you insist on arguing over this issue. It seems pretty clear to me.

In fact just yesterday - while doing more casting work, I wondered about the humidity level. As I worked I knew it was not 100 degrees - but as I worked and sat here on the internet - I was burning up. So, I checked the weather (Im still not acclimated to Texas temps) and while the temp was only 75 yesterday our humidity level was 87% -- and that is the truth. There is a big difference between dry heat and heat and humidity. Which is why I think the temperature that day on Onion Mountain was probably not 100 degrees - but lower, as I was told this area is very humid, I am trying very hard to get humidity levels for that area but apparently this is going to be difficult. The words you used "100 degrees in the shade" is a very common phrase - and not one I have ever taken as a literal meaning.

DDA is right - I have been involved in this since the Jefferson Conference - Tube noted this as well in one of his posts in the Original Dermal thread. DDA and I were talking - while looking at the Onion Mountain Cast, when I noticed something and I asked him about it. DDA insisted I talk to Dr. Meldrum and Mr. Chilcutt and Matt about this right away --- I insisted I did not. I wanted no part of this. DDA insisted, and eventually I gave up and did infact talk to Dr. Meldrum and Matt about what I was thinking - but it was a hectic night after the conference so the discussion was tabled. Somehow it happened on this forum. That question I had then, still goes unanswered today, even by me. But, I havent given up yet.

Ok folks. Enough of this drama, lets get to work.

Wolftrax brought up the fact that I never did Heat the water in my experiments to 100 degrees - I didnt feel I needed to. He also brought up that I did not do a straight pour into the tracks - I also didnt feel I needed to, as my work was not specifically about the work Matt Crowley had done. But, this is an interesting idea - so I took up the challenge to see if I could duplicate Matts work... Here are the results.

1. Water Heated to 100 Degrees

2. Plaster of Paris mixed thick (just like Matt said to)

3. Plaster poured into the Arch portion of the cast - no splash casting.

3. Air Temperature 75 degrees, Humidity is at 87%

4. Measurement of the Dry Track: 9 inches long by 3 inches wide.

I decided to take Wolftrax up on his challenge. Why not go ahead and test the Theory of Matt Crowley. If these "Artifacts" (which I call "Crowley lines") will happen in the circumstances he has noted - I should see these Crowley lines in this cast. So. The work began

I poured out a pan full of the Onion Mountain Soil -- First off let me tell you, this soil is just as powdery and lightweight as the Tricalcium Phosophate I used in my first set of experiments - but dont let that fool you. Unlike the Tricalcium Phosphate - I could apply my bodyweight to this soil - heck I could stand on one foot and only get to a maximum depth of about 2 inches. I find this curious. It must have something to do with the Clay found in the soil (which is one of a few things Volcanic Ash turns into as it breaks down) But lets be very clear about this - if you took this sample to have it analyzed - it would not come back with a reading that says it is Volcanic Ash - Volcanic Ash breaks down very fast - in as little as 2 years if it is exposed to the elements - I was told even faster, by a Volcanologist currently working on Mt. Saint Helens for the USGS, if that Ash is on the side of a hill - or a Mountain side. I will get into the actual properties of the soil at a later date - as I am waiting for some other very specific information about this soil. I am trying to dot all of my i's and crossing all my t's.

Ok for the pictures. I did exactly what Matt Crowley discusses - and Wolftrax brings up in this thread. My results -- I do have Dermal Ridges and Flexion Creases. While the dermals are very faint they are there. The dermals on a human female are much smaller and more difficult to recover than that of a human male. These casts are of my feet - and I am (I guarantee you) a human female.

Measurement of the track prior to casting:

These numbers remained unchanged in the finished cast - there was no expanision.. I can not account for this. I expected to see some expansion - but I had none.

I was unable to duplicate Matt's work. I did exactly as I was instructed, and I could not do it. I have the feeling it may have everything to do with the casting agent. But, something we need to consider is this. Matt's work for the most part was in Volcanic ash - and Im sure that ash moved much easier under the weight of the casting agent. This soil is not the same - at all. If you look at the full foot cast you will see a depression in the soil (in the arch area) - that is where the casting agent made first contact with the soil - and it abruptly stops. Another thing to consider - soil is not Volcanic Ash. There is a big difference between the two.

My work is still ongoing - and if I can answer any questions I will be more than happy to. I will not guess - or make assumptions. I am not saying this is the final word on anything - and I am open to any and all suggestions. I am not doing this to trash Matt or his work - I just want answers and I want the truth, just as many of you do.

So, I think its pretty safe to say - based on this test: Dermal Ridges and Flexion Creases are possible in the soil from the Logging Road of Onion Mountain. Ok, here are the pictures. I am curious to hear what all of you think.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Melissa]

OOps I forgot one - and its very important.

And also, I did see dermal ridges in the soil itself - I attempted to get pictures of these, but was unable to. In order to actually see these dermals in the soil - I had to look for them. They were not easy to see at all, and if hadnt thought to look - I never would have seen them.

Also, very important to note. If you look at where the dermals are seen on my foot - it becomes very familiar. I have a theory about this. I could see no dermals on my foot that directly impacted the soil. Why, I wondered. My thought is this. Remember this soil is very lightweight and powdery - the bottom of my foot that actually took my full body weight have no dermals shown - while the outer edges that do not take the full weight of my foot - did show dermals.. I found this interesting, as when I did the tests using Tricalcium phosphate - I never applied my full bodyweight - as that would have resulted in my foot going all the way to the pan, thus no track to cast. But simply placing my foot in the substrate was enough to capture dermals and flexion creases.

Now, the soil in this experiment is just as fine and powdery as the Tricalcium Phosphate - are we seeing dermals on the outer edge of my foot for the very same reason as we did with the Tricalcium phosphate? Direct contact wipes them out under the weight of your body - but gentle contact preserves them? It is a very strong possibility. And, if you look at the Onion Mountain Cast - the majority of noted dermals are on the edge. I have to wonder if the arch area of the Onion Mountain didnt come into contact with uneven ground or some obstruction that did not allow the foot or whatever to have full contact with the soil - and that could very well be why we are seeing what appears to be possible dermal ridges near the heel of the Onion Mountain Cast.

Its just a theory - and I hope I explained it well.

This post has been edited by Melissa: Oct 16 2006, 11:15 AM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[damndirtyape]

You saw no lines crossing out of the casted track onto the over splash edges?

How thick is thick? What ratios of plaster to water are you using? How does that compare to what Matt was using?

[Melissa]

You saw no lines crossing out of the casted track onto the over splash edges?

No, I saw none. Nothing that even resembled this.

How thick is thick? What ratios of plaster to water are you using? How does that compare to what Matt was using?

I mixed the way Matt told me to - I did my normal mix 1/3 water to 2/3 plaster of paris, then he told me to add about a handful more and let it sit for about 10 minutes, so it would get good and thick. I did not measure this amount specifically - as Tube never gave me an exact measurement of how much extra he used. He just said a handful.. I am assuming his hands are bigger than mine - so I just let it sit till it was a little thicker than pancake batter. Then I poured.

The rest of my casting will have exact measurements of the P OF P and Water.

[Melissa]

Sorry - I was looking at the wrong page of my notebook...

The mixing ratio for Plaster of Paris - is 2 to 1. 2 cups of Plaster to 1 cup of water. The rest of my comment is unchanged. I simply put in another handful of Plaster of Paris.

I was thinking of something else when I typed my first response to you. Sorry about that.

[LAL]

Where'd everybody go?

I thought you'd get a thorough drubbing with this one. I think tube's findings regarding OM are certainly in question, and yes, I'll say it again, I think some of his work has been demolished (I think some of the later stuff self-destructed).

What does Chicutt have to say?

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

I think tube's findings regarding OM are certainly in question, and yes, I'll say it again, I think some of his work has been demolished (I think some of the later stuff self-destructed).

Care to back that up with any specifics? And by that I don't mean another generality. :wink:

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 23 2006, 10:34 AM

[LAL]

Tube wasn't replicating conditions at OM as closely as possible. Melissa did, using tube's mix and water temperature and didn't get the same results.

You and John Green debated for days on Coleman's Yahoo forum, didn't you? Wasn't that where Green said he always wondered if those "looping lines around the heel" were casting artifacts? Are these the same concentric half circles we're talking about that could have resulted when the pour apparently flattened ridges in the center?

I was never able to fathom how bounding about at Alki Beach said anything about impressions in clayey sand at Bluff Creek or even a compliant gait in a creature with an IM index of circa 88, but that's a topic for another thread.

Tube started out okay with this:

"Just so we do not get off on the "wrong foot" let me be clear about the scope of these investigations. I am not "debunking" the claims made about all casts that are claimed to have dermal ridges. My scope of investigation has been limited to ONE cast which was made under rather extrordinary conditions. Various other casts such as Paul Freeman's "Wrinkle Foot" or the Elkins cast made in Georgia were made in mud. My tests suggest that this ridge artifact process does not occur in mud. Various other casts are claimed to exhibit dermal ridges. Of those I have no first hand knowledge or opinion, as I have not seen the casts nor do I have any knowledge of the soil conditions under which they were made."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...1337entry231337

My understandng is that tube has had no training in fingerprint analysis.

Chilcutt's drawing from the "chalk talk" is on this page:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...0344entry270344

[Skeptical Greg]

My understandng is that tube has had no training in fingerprint analysis.

It is my understanding that Chillcut has no training in Bigfoot anatomy either ...

[watch1]

Maybe you could point us in the direction of someone who does..so we can get this cleared up.

Mike (watch1)

[Yetifan]

Tube wasn't replicating conditions at OM as closely as possible. Melissa did, using tube's mix and water temperature and didn't get the same results.

Melissa recently wrote:

My work is still ongoing - and if I can answer any questions I will be more than happy to. I will not guess - or make assumptions. I am not saying this is the final word on anything - and I am open to any and all suggestions. I am not doing this to trash Matt or his work - I just want answers and I want the truth, just as many of you do.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 23 2006, 05:01 PM

[LAL]

You didn't answer the questions.

[Melissa]

Well, I didnt think doing this would make me popular -- thats for sure.

My work was never about proving or disproving the theories or work of Matt, simply because I want to know under what conditions these "Artifacts" are possible, and how (if possible) to distinguish between an artifact and dermal ridges or flexion creases. I think for anyone to be stunned by the presence of "Artifacts" is silly to be honest. These things happen.. But, its up to us to figure out why and how it happens.

Fact is - I did exactly what I was challenged to do - and the results - nothing even close to what Matt had. I have a good idea why I didnt achieve the same results as Matt - but I do not know anything for sure yet. But the fact remains - I did what Matt did, and I did not have the same results, and if Matt is right, this should have happened. Period.

Anyone have any good guesses as to why I could not duplicate Matts work? I do.

[bipto]

Well, I didnt think doing this would make me popular -- thats for sure.

I'm sorry...were you ever popular!?!* :laugh:




* Notwithstanding high school, of course.

[Melissa]

I will have you know - I was NOT popular in high school either :laugh:

wait - that cant be good

[bipto]

Not being popular in high school is, in my book, a point in your favor.

[Melissa]

K - then I wont tell you I was a Pon Pom girl :laugh:

Hey, if I learn to build an awesome fire -- will that give me more points??

[LAL]

"I learned the truth at seventeen, that love was meant for beauty queens, those high school girls with clear skin smiles, who married young and then retired.................."-Janis Ian

[RayG]

Anyone have any good guesses as to why I could not duplicate Matts work? I do.

Because you haven't accurately duplicated one or more of his experimental protocols?

• methods
• materials
• measurements
• conditions

RayG

[Melissa]

Well - read back ray - what is the only difference between this experiment and Tubes??? This isnt hard.. And is very likely the reason

[LAL]

Tube didn't use Onion Mountain soil. Is that it?

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

You didn't answer the questions.

Oh, you were actually serious with those questions.

Ok.

You and John Green debated for days on Coleman's Yahoo forum, didn't you?

Yes. The one I cleaned his clock on...I remember it well. :wink:

Wasn't that where Green said he always wondered if those "looping lines around the heel" were casting artifacts?

Not sure. But even if he did, why is that pertinent to this discussion? Unless, of course, it's another attempt at a deflection.

Are these the same concentric half circles we're talking about that could have resulted when the pour apparently flattened ridges in the center?

Maybe. Oh, wait, speaking of answering questions...you never
answered my question about if you've ever disagreed with anything Meldrum has uttered that you've read. You gave some vague general response. I asked for two specific examples. You didn't even give me one. Hmmm...


Oh...and your link to Chilcutt's drawing at the '05 conference of a flat ridge peak.
I think tube responds nicely to any concerns Chilcutt may have had

tube, at his site, wrote:

In Jefferson Texas I met Jimmy Chilcutt. He examined a number of my test casts with a loupe I had brought with me. He claimed that the "ridge peaks are flat" on my test casts, while real dermal ridges, and more importantly, the Onion Mountain cast had rounded ridge peaks. Chilcutt drew this image on a blackboard (seen below on the right.)

This obviously gave me pause, as I'm not a latent fingerprint expert. But I was also fairly sure that this was not a universal characteristic of all casting artifacts, as I could see with my loupes what seemed to me to be rounded ridge peaks.

Note too, and this is very important, that we are talking about very fine levels of detail in the casts. If Chilcutt is claiming that the ridge peaks are rounded in the Onion Mountain cast, it tacitly assumes that he has examined the original cast, or a copy known to have accurately captured this level of detail. And how can you assess you have such an accurate copy unless you can compare it to the original?

In any event, when I got back to Seattle I sectioned a test cast of mine. Rick Noll graciously allowed me to come over to his house and photograph the result (seen below on the left). The metric in the image is Rick's addition, and is the result of a measurement using a dial caliper. As you can see, this proves not all ridge peaks are flat, as in Chilcutt's drawing. Note too, how large the ridge is, trough to trough.

LAL also wrote:

Tube didn't use Onion Mountain soil. Is that it?

Tube has used some Onion Mountain soil in his experiments. Read the site.

Another thing to consider with using "Onion Mountain soil" is that soil components can be different in different places on a mountain.
Was the soil taken exactly where Green made the cast? Wasn't Green's cast done on or very close to a road which would, probably, have less organic material than something back in the woods a bit? After talking to tube, he said there was quite a bit of organic material in the soil....not usually a component of "road" dirt.


http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 23 2006, 08:07 PM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[scotto]

K - then I wont tell you I was a Pon Pom girl :laugh:

Hey, if I learn to build an awesome fire -- will that give me more points??

Back in high school, building fires didn't get you any points....... :new_lmaosmiley:





.......and I better be a good boy and leave it at that. :wink:

[LAL]

I gave one example, just not in a reply to you, and I'm not sure I disagree; I'm still mulling it over. I haven't been able to find anything on the possible Homo erectus skull fragment he mentions, but he doesn't say it definitely is, so I can't really disagree. I think it's unlikely. On the other hand, stone tools evidently made by Homo erectus have been found in China, dated to 1.6 mya, so given land bridges and erectus' penchant for travel, who knows? They had plenty of time to get to the New World.

I think reading is quite a bit different than "worshipping at his altar", don't you? Maybe that was supposed to be funny, but I think it would have fallen flat even coming from Don Rickels. Do a search on Meldrum on Idaho State's website; you might be surprised. His collegues may not have liked his subject matter, but he got tenure partly because his methodology is so good. IOW, he knows his stuff. He's no Dr. Franklin Rhuel, and I'm no PhD groupie.

Incidently, you might have used a "perhaps" yourself when you said Freeman fooled him.

You haven't told me who "many" is. And please post pictures showing where Freeman casts are "cartoonish".

Must be some other debate with Green because it looked to me like you were the one with the clean clock. I'll have to look it up. Now, can you help define exactly which area Green was referring to regarding "looping lines"?

Tube ended up concluding everything on that cast is an artifact. I don't think there's any argument there are artifacts on the cast. The question is exactly where.

I don't know how many generations removed this copy is, but even here, the ridges have characteristics of dermal ridges. Note the the V-shaped meeting of the ridges:

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

Incidently, you might have used a "perhaps" yourself when you said Freeman fooled him.

Please cite the quote. If you can, if we ever meet, I'll rub your feet for an hour. :laugh:

I don't know how many generations removed this copy is, but even here, the ridges have characteristics of dermal ridges. Note the the V-shaped meeting of the ridges. (photo on the bottom, left hand side)

Now look at the photo on the top (left hand side). No dermal ridges were used AT ALL in it's construction. It also has a v-shaped, or delta, marking in it just below the toes on the left.

And please post pictures showing where Freeman casts are "cartoonish".

Below is not one but two of Mr. Freeman's amazing "hand" finds! The footprints are all Freeman-related "finds". You really have no problems at all with the one in the upper left hand corner? Seriously, its outline looks closer to "Wilson" from Castaway than an organically made print. Do you seriously think any of those probably came from a Bigfoot?

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 23 2006, 09:10 PM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

Attached image(s)

 

[Blackdog]

I don't know how many generations removed this copy is, but even here, the ridges have characteristics of dermal ridges.

Regardless, a copy is a copy, you can't have it both ways. If a copy of the Skookum cast isn't good enough then a copy of the Onion MT. cast can't be either.

[RayG]

Well - read back ray - what is the only difference between this experiment and Tubes??? This isnt hard.. And is very likely the reason

The only difference? I see a few. You're sure you used exactly the same methods, materials, measurements, and conditions he did?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great you're attempting to replicate his experiment. :icon14:

RayG

[scotto]

Below is not one but two of Mr. Freeman's amazing "hand" finds! The footprints are all Freeman-related "finds". You really have no problems at all with the one in the upper left hand corner? Seriously, its outline looks closer to "Wilson" from Castaway than an organically made print. Do you seriously think any of those probably came from a Bigfoot?

Some of Freeman's stuff is good, some borders on the ridiculous. Some people think he embellished his "finds" to make them easier to cast, I don't know if this is true or speculation.

But he conveniently "found" a whole lot more stuff than the average bf researcher actively looking for tracks.

Krantz seemed to think he was the real deal.

[Melissa]

Now look at the photo on the top (left hand side). No dermal ridges were used AT ALL in it's construction. It also has a v-shaped, or delta, marking in it just below the toes on the left.

Now, Yetifan - you know I think the world of you, and yes I see what your talking about. But - how did it happen? I have no issues with whether or not it can happen - but how Tube managed to create these "Artifacts" I still dont know. While I think its important for people to understand "Artifacts" can happen - they also need to know HOW artifacts can and do happen. Tube never really went into this.

Anyone can make anything happen - depends on how bad you want to make it happen. And, just because Tube showed its possible to create artifacts in Volcanic Ash - that doesnt mean it will happen under the same conditions he used -- in any substrate. Tubes work spoke directly to the Onion Mountain Cast - regardless how you slice it - so, why didnt I get the same results he did, using the 100 degree water, thick plaster mix and straight pour - using the soil from Onion Mountain? Im still scratching my head over that..

Do you not think answering these questions are just as important, if one is objective?

[Melissa]

Well - read back ray - what is the only difference between this experiment and Tubes??? This isnt hard.. And is very likely the reason

The only difference? I see a few. You're sure you used exactly the same methods, materials, measurements, and conditions he did?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great you're attempting to replicate his experiment. :icon14:

RayG

I never said I used the exact same materials - remember ray - this is about the Onion Mountain Cast.. Thats what many are just not understanding.

The soil on Onion Mountain has NO volcanic ash... What did tube use for his casting experiments? Volcanic Ash. Tube also used Hydrocal - I used Plaster of Paris, which by the way is what was used to cast the Onion Mountain Tracks... In all honesty ray - Im confused as to why no one ever questioned the use of Volcanic Ash to either prove or disprove the dermals in this specific cast. While the soil conditions were not easy to come by - the information is out there.

Measurements? Did I miss a post where Tube measured out his Hydrocal and water? Tube told me specifically to mix my plaster of paris (when he stopped telling me to not use plaster of paris) a little thicker than pancake batter - then let it sit for about 10 mins. Now, hydrocal and Plaster of Paris are two totally different animals - so I had no choice but to approximate. I cant tell you how many buckets I have been though because the plaster of paris set up too fast - :laugh:

I appreciate your kind words ray - I really do, and I hope you do not mistake my words for attitude. I do think this is something that should be talked out - to be honest. Because I have read that Dermal thread more times than I care to count, and I still do not know under what conditions and what circumstances must be present in order for these "Artifacts" to happen. That is something that really needs to be answered. Is it a mixing problem? If so, how to we prevent it in the future? Is it a soil issue? If so, what soils do we need to be aware of this issue with? If we have a track in a soil (and we know its a great soil for artifacts) how do we cast and keep those artifacts to a minimum? What is the optimum temperature for the water to be used for mixing the casting agent? Those are the questions I want answered.

Personally I think it boils down to a couple factors - he used Hydrocal with water heated to 100 degrees, knowing full well this would infact create "Artifacts". He used Volcanic Ash - whats the difference between Volcanic Ash and the soil at Onion Mountain - I can tell you quite a bit.

Yes, before this is over - I expect standard bigfooting equipment to include measuring cups !! :laugh: (kidding).

[Melissa]

I don't know how many generations removed this copy is, but even here, the ridges have characteristics of dermal ridges.

Regardless, a copy is a copy, you can't have it both ways. If a copy of the Skookum cast isn't good enough then a copy of the Onion MT. cast can't be either.

WOW - do you know how much trouble a comment exactly like THAT got me into?

But I do agree with you. I do believe their is some value in using the Onion Mountain Cast copies - as they are representative of what Mr. Green said he did see, AND more than that - there are other casts which exhibit the same characteristics. I always wondered why that is - when we see this happening in different geographical locations -- that is important when you factor in weather conditions etc. Its the dermals and artifacts I am interested in - how and why.

My work in relation to the Onion Mountain Cast was simply to find out IF Dermal Ridges or Flexion creases are possible in that specific type of soil - and I have my answer.. But - my work is still ongoing..

AND - I agree with you - when the whereabouts of the original are known, then you should always go with the original, which is big reason why I do not agree with the work done on the skookum cast copies.

[bipto]

The soil on Onion Mountain has NO volcanic ash... What did tube use for his casting experiments? Volcanic Ash. Tube also used Hydrocal - I used Plaster of Paris, which by the way is what was used to cast the Onion Mountain Tracks...

This is very significant, IMO. If Tube was able to create artifacts using material that was not used when casting the OM tracks and if his technique was significantly different than that used by Green when casting them (i.e., the temperature of the water), then I think Melissa's findings are important. This takes nothing away from Tube's work regarding the possibility that, under certain conditions and with certain materials, dermals could be simulated. However, I don't think that until someone finds false dermals after doing what Mel did here - namely, reproduce the OM conditions as closely as possible - we can discount what's on those casts.

Remember, I'm talking about the Onion Mountain casts here. Nothing else. Tube's work clearly shows that false dermals are possible. I'm just saying his work (due to his methodology) does not show that the Onion Mountain dermals are false.

[LAL]

I don't know how many generations removed this copy is, but even here, the ridges have characteristics of dermal ridges.

Regardless, a copy is a copy, you can't have it both ways. If a copy of the Skookum cast isn't good enough then a copy of the Onion MT. cast can't be either.

The copy isn't painted and there's no hair flow involved. The "original" OM cast being questioned is a copy. The original cast made by John Green was lost.

The same kind of V-shaped meeting can be seen here (not from Onion Mountain):





http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/dermal.html