Testing Testing Options

[vilnoori]

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

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/jimmy-chilcutt.html

This post has been edited by vilnoori: Mar 5 2009, 03:23 PM

[oregonfooter]

Unfortunately, that article doesn't say what kind, if any, barrier spray was used to create the cast.

[Bitter Monk]

No, in other people's research, has hairspray been used as a barrier spray to capture dermal ridges or fingerprints?

Now I see. I honestly don't know. Matt (Tube) was just mentioning the other day he had used silly puddy to record dermals which wouldn't require a fixative. To be honest I wasn't sure it was going to work. When the spray is applied to the dry ash you can actually see the liquid from the spray being absorbed up into the ash. My fear was that the absorption process would wipe away the fine detail of the fingerprints but that didn't prove to be the case.

Unfortunately, that article doesn't say what kind, if any, barrier spray was used to create the cast.

Having interviewed Pat Akin (the finder/caster of that track) at length I can assure you no barrier spray was used.

[oregonfooter]

That's what I thought. Hence, why the whole casting artifact vs. dermal ridges debate started to verify the results.

[Bitter Monk]

A little mentioned but big part of the problem is the lack of providence in regards to many tracks. Before latex molding it was common for casts to be replicated by pressing them into a fine substrate and pouring a mold in the impression. In such a case even an expertly cast track could begin to exhibit artifacts in subsequent castings. In the case of the Elkins Creek cast the original was unfortunately destroyed in an accident, leaving us with only generational copies.

[oregonfooter]

Awh, I understand now, thanks.

What's your next phase or study?

[Bitter Monk]

That's a really good question. I have several different options I'm considering so the best thing I can say is "stay tuned".