Thanks to the stupid forum limits on pics, I lost the last hour of work I did. Ill see if I can put it together tomorrow. :new_grrr: :new_grrr: :new_grrr: :new_grrr: :new_grrr: :new_grrr: :new_grrr:

Pictures are finally up....

http://www.texasmetal.net/bigfoot/lecture.htm

Boy, the second to the last picture looks like Nick Nolte's mug shot.... beat you guys to it!!!

Hey AnotherPullTab! Great photos! However, at the very bottom, you list that you had the opportunity to meet me at the conference, but I wasn't there physically this past weekend (but I was there in spirit)! I was there in person in April for my lecture...did I meet you then? If not, I hope whoever is claiming to be me is a hot, sexy blond!!!

AnotherPullTab says:

During the presentation given by Rick Noll, the issue of casting artifacts came up and the impression I was left with was that he didn't "buy it". Without naming the the person directly, Rick indicated that there were problems with the way the person who is currently advocating the artifact suggestion, was pursuing the issue. Technical reasons were given with regard to mixing of the medium used (water temperature was specifically mentioned as being wrong). Further, Rick commented in an offhand way that if he (Rick) mixed his plaster the way this person did, he would be "out of a job pretty quick".




I have read a bit about casting prints on various sites and very little was mentioned about the mixing of casting media.

Can someone maybe clarify the mystery please?

Oh and thanks for posting the pics AnotherPullTab!

Im so sorry! I was mistaken. Please check your PM's :new_whistle: Oh and I amended the site. At the time I kind of thought it was odd that you would be there to hear material you had probably heard a million times. EDIT TO ADD: Just so no one thinks Im absolutely nuts, I never claimed to meet you LOL. I simply said you were in attendance. :-)) When I start meeting folks that arent there, Ill head over to the Ghosthunters forum :laugh:




Is it too late for an autograph? Is Eddie Murphy fun to work with? :new_lmaosmiley:

Bitter Monk has done an article on just that very topic.

http://www.georgiabigfoot.com/index.php?op...id=24&Itemid=29

And the related BFF thread:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14579

I've already got that article in my field book (damn good article) what I was wondering about was temperature of the water being used?

Don't remember that being mentioned before.

I didn't mean for it to come out exactly like that... yes you can get artifacts and in my line of work that would spell doom. We use 40 to 50 degree water here at work for the face or splash coat at least. This thin layer will harden up just fine because it can allow evaporation more readily even at that temp. I did mention that watre is heavier then the plaster mix and will sink out of the mix towards the face... and I believe that wicking might have the effect to cause alternating hard and spongy areas. Water temp and pouring water into the plaster to mix are the two biggest no nos... That doesn't mean that in the past, researchers didn't do it that way though.

Thanks for the clarification!

I apologize if I didnt explain it right, Rick. :doh:

Have you written up anything here on how to do casts? If so, how does your technique differ from other researchers? I always thought that the procedure (mixing, pouring etc.) was the same way each and every time. In otherwords, there are instructions that come with the Ultracal, so does anyone follow them or is it mostly experience that teaches you how best to work with the material?

As for artifacts, how do they compare to what are being called "dermals"? Are artifacts easy to create? What contributes to their cause?

I got your PM, thank you and don't worry about it! At least you confused me with another woman vs. some hairy guy!

I love hearing Meldrum, Noll, and Chilcutt...could listen to them all day! I do wish I could have been there, but I'll be seeing everyone in Idaho. I'll be wearing a name badge though, so I can be identified..."Autumn Williams"....

I can see it now...

"It was really nice to meet Autumn at the Idaho Conference but boy has she let herself go!"

Now that I think about it I've never seen Kathy and Autumn together in a picture. :new_whistle:

Hey APT - Great Pictures I am sorry I didnt get a chance to meet you.

It was a great exhibit.

Ill be at the June and July lectures. Do you plan to go?

As much as I would love to -- Im afraid Once was enough for me.. I am new to texas, and the heat and humidity down there was almost too much - LMAO. Which is a shame, because the next set of speakers is going to be just as great!!!!

But, if you seen a woman walking around in a blue sport jacket and a frizzy pony tail (from the humidity) that was me :laugh:

Humidity? that was nothing! Wait until August

If you can make it, come on down. We do have air conditioning here!

first it was snakes, bugs and armadillos --- now its heat and humidity..... LMAO. This state is tough on a new person.. lmao.

Thank you APT - I will try

Great pics, APT, thanks for posting!

Wish I could have been there, but I hope Rick gets DVD's out for this.

Any time frame Guestimate Rick? I guess you will need to wait until the whole thing is over, and get it all out on one set.

After returning from a week long cruise to Alaska as part of the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries Sasquatch Symposium without any Internet surfing on my part, I was surprised to read this last night:

"Jimmy Chilcutt was the next speaker and I found his presentation to be just as informative as Dr. Meldrums. There has been much speculation lately on whether or not Chilcutt is actually seeing dermal ridges or what are known as "casting artifacts" from the cast making process. As a law enforcement officer, part of the training I have taken in the past included many of the same courses in fingerprint science that Jimmy Chilcutt has taken, although I do not consider myself an expert by any means. I do, however, consider myself knowledgeable enough about dermal ridges to know that what I saw that day on the cast pictured above were indeed dermal ridges. The ridges I observed included many characteristics inherit to dermal ridges found in fingerprints and I presume, footprints.

During the question/answer period at the end of his presentation, I asked Jimmy what his opinion was on the issue of casting artifacts vs. what he may be misinterpreting. He thanked me for my question and stated that it was an important one because he believes that the issue of artifacts are overblown (my word) and that in the time he was a police officer, he cast well over a hundred prints in soil and never had a problem with artifacts. After the presentation, I approached Jimmy and explained that I wasn't trying to put him on the spot with my question as I felt it could be interpreted as hostile. He thanked me again for asking about it and we had a good discussion over the various casts he had with him. I explained to him that I was an officer and had worked in Identification (working solely with fingerprints) in the past. He opened up a bit more at this point and eagerly showed me the cast seen in the photo above. I believe this cast was the Onion Creek (??) cast that has been questioned with regard to casting artifacts in the past. Immediately, I was able to see specific traits inherent to dermal ridges such as ending ridges, islands and bifurcations. I do not believe that any form of casting artifact would be responsible for these very specific indications.

During the presentation given by Rick Noll, the issue of casting artifacts came up and the impression I was left with was that he didn't "buy it". Without naming the the person directly, Rick indicated that there were problems with the way the person who is currently advocating the artifact suggestion, was pursuing the issue. Technical reasons were given with regard to mixing of the medium used (water temperature was specifically mentioned as being wrong). Further, Rick commented in an offhand way that if he (Rick) mixed his plaster the way this person did, he would be "out of a job pretty quick".

Taken from this website: http://www.texasmetal.net/bigfoot/lecture.htm written by Steve Sprague who is posting here as AnotherPullTab.

Steve, you have grossly mischaracterized Rick Noll's position on this issue. How do I know this? Well, I just got off the phone with him and I asked him. What Rick was trying to get at with the "out of a job pretty quick" comment is that if casts are made using incorrect technique then errors can result. Specifically, if barrier sprays are not used before casts are made in fine, dry substrates then casting artifacts can occur. Remember, I was investigating what happens when this kind of flawed technique is employed. As I have previously demonstrated, and Rick Noll has directly witnessed in my basement, my cement mixing technique is fine, even having gone so far as to weigh out the cement and water to the gram using an Ohaus balance for some of these tests.

Fact: John Green did not use a barrier spray when he made the Onion Mountain cast. This is beyond dispute and I have the e-mail from John Green to prove it.

Steve, I think you have also mischaracterized what Rick was getting at with the "buy it" claim. Again, how do I know this? Well, I decided to put Rick on the spot and ask him the 64 dollar question: "Do you believe the texture on the Onion Mountain cast is a result of casting artifacts"? Answer: Yes, he believes that the textures he has examined on the Onion Mountain cast are casting artifacts.

As far as what Jimmy Chilcutt spoke about recently, I can't comment authoritatively, as I wasn't there. However, you have quoted him saying something that I've personally heard him say at least twice on two different occasions. This is that he's never seen casting artifacts in any of the casts he has made as a police officer. This I do not dispute. But immediately after he mentioned this to me on the porch in Jefferson Texas during the conversation that Jeff Meldrum, Rick Noll and I were having with him I understood why, as Mr. Chilcutt began to explain how, as a police officer, he used a BARRIER SPRAY on the tracks and impressions he cast.

There, by his own public admission, Chilcutt revealed that he has never personally investigated what happens when casts are made in fine, dry soils without using barrier sprays.

In contrast, I have , and I spent the better part of year doing so. To be blunt, who then is more "qualified" to speak authoritatively about what happens when casts are made in fine, dry soils or other substrates without barrier sprays?

Now why should I go to all the trouble to point all this out? Well, in this day and age there are plenty of people who simply "cut and paste" their arguments without doing real research. If I do not rebut these gross mischaracterizations, someone is eventually going to cut and paste them together and start promoting it as fact.

Steve, I'm going to guess that you did not attend the Bellingham conference last year where I first presented my findings. If you had perhaps you would know who I am without referring to me so obliquely as the "person who is currently advocating the artifact suggestion". If you had attended the Bellingham conference you would have also heard Jeff Meldrum publicly describing the strength of my findings a "slam dunk".

Thankfully, the strength of my findings is based on solid (literally) physical evidence, and not just my opinion , as this photograph demonstrates. The cast on the bottom is the Onion Mountain cast exhibiting a texture that Jimmy Chilcutt has claimed are dermal ridges. The cast on top is a plaster of Paris test cast made in fine, dry substrate with no barrier spray. What can I say? The evidence speaks for itself...

Matt Crowley Seattle WA

Im certainly not out to mischaracterize ANYONE and who the hell are you even suggest it without giving me the benefit of the doubt of being WRONG on my part? You dont know me. I simply repeated what I thought his position was. I even apologized to Rick in this very thread for misinterpreting him if I had done so. Im fully aware of his comments with regard to incorrect technique. That too was mentioned by both Rick and myself.



Great. Im not knocking what you have done. I told you that I thought it was important.



Im not doubting you nor am I questioning your honesty.



Again, this isnt about me doubting you or questioning your findings. This isnt even about the Onion Mountain cast as far as Im concerned. I mentioned that because I *believed* the cast I was looking at was a copy of that because it looked very similar..I didnt think to ask. I dont know if it was or not. Thats why I tried to be very careful about absolutes. For me, without knowing FOR SURE which cast is an Onion Mountain cast, I can only go by what I SAW.



Ok, great. Again, no disputes.



Yeah, thats pretty blunt. Im not going to sit here and compare your resume with his based on who has done what. Thats not the intent of this thread nor is it my intent to debate personal experiences. You have done some amazing work, but dont discount other peoples experiences simply because a comment might lead you to think something. Why dont you ask him directly what his experience is?



I dont think too many people are sitting around noting what I have written and filing it away as some kind of fact to use later. There are many, many others here that have done more in one weekend than I have done in a year. My writings here and on my site were just a brief overview of MY EXPERIENCES and MY TAKE ON THINGS AS I HEARD THEM. I indicated as much. Nowhere did I write that what I heard was the be all end all of information.



Youre absolutely right. I didnt attend the Bellingham conference and I had no clue who you were and still really dont, outside of what you have done here. That said, I referred to you in that way so that I wouldnt be just tossing your name out there in what might be perceived as an unkind way. In otherwords, Matt, I was being polite by not "dragging you into it" by name. Those that know you would know who I was talking about and those that didnt know you, could do their own research to see who it was if they were so inclined.



Well, Matt, you have some interesting findings, but I believe you are somewhat discounting the training, and most of all, the vast experience of Mr. Chilcutt in knowing what a dermal ridge looks like. He may not know what a casting artifact looks like as well as you do, but I will damn sure bet you that he knows a dermal ridge when he sees it. Do you? You spoke of who was better qualified to interpret things at this point and I believe when it comes to dermals, Im going to side with Chilcutt.

This, of course, isnt to suggest that he is incapable of being wrong..far from it. The issue seems to be that you need an expert to determine the differences between what might be a dermal ridge and what might be a casting artifact. Chilcutt is an expert on dermal ridges. Are all suspected lines on a cast, dermals? Hell no as artifacts are a distinct possibility. Beyond that, if you intend to reply to this, please do it in PM. I dont care to have a public pissing contest.

Steve

Bigfoot on film! RAARRR!

:new_whistle: Trollie, Trollie, Rollie Pollie Trollie :new_whistle: Click to view attachment