How come I have a headache?

Is this thread about Freeman or about dermal/artifact experiments? Can we try to stay on topic here? (although the butt print casted by Freeman is very interesting...the details are, um, detailed...)

First, the road....we do not know if the road was newly constructed (the FS lists the date for the road as 1965) or freshly bladed. Regardless, as I noted before, the material on the surface would be fairly free of organics (as it would have either scraped away the top layer or brought lower soil to the surface). Later, as folks drove on the road, it allowed road dust to be kicked up and settle on the side of the road and into the prints...that is very clear from the photos.

Second...the soil sent to tube and Melissa was scraped from the road itself (not the side of the road), so it had some organics, but not the kind of organics that you will find in the rest of the forest. Outside of the fact that it was on top of the road, I would not use the term "top soil" to describe it, as top soil is the organic layer that allows plants to grow.

Third...I completely disagree that using volcanic ash in anyway replicates the soil at Onion Mountain (that does not negate that artifacts were produced in the ash, but only that it is NOT the soil at Onion Mountain). I also completely disagree with the statement by tube of:



There is NO way for anyone to know what that soil could do 40 years ago. We can indeed test the soil from today and see what it can/can't do and hypothesize backwards. It's not like the Forest Service brought in truck loads of new soil or removed the soil that was there. The point that is getting missed is that it may not be the same consistency or content, but it is the same soil. Just because it didn't produce artifacts doesn't mean it can't...more work is needed. What I would suggest doing is the following (please note that I have a geology minor, and though no expert in soil, I did spend a great deal of time processing soil samples form archaeological sites as a grad student and punishment for arguing with a professor over bigfoot):

1. Separate the soil that I send you into three batches. Keep one as it is; take the two other batches and DRY screen it through progressively smaller screen until all visible organics are removed and a very fine powder is left. Take one batch of the dry screen soil and set aside. Take the other batch of dry screened soil and WET screen that through window screen...take the soil LEFT on the screen (any non-visible organics should pass through), place on a tray and let dry out of the wind.

2. Now experiment with the two soils...dry screen and wet screen. I would try making a print, then leaving the uncasted print in the sun to "bake" (which sounds like what happened in 1967). I suspect highly that the heat of the soil at the time of casting (not necessarily the water) may also be a factor.

3. Report back the results.

4. Folks need to stop bickering just to bicker! Let me state plainly the facts:

a. tube was able to produce artifacts using volcanic ash. For the love of God, this PROVES that dermals CAN be artifacts...there is no point in arguing about it...they were produced! Does it mean that Onion Mountain or any other dermals noted by Chilcutt ARE artifacts? No. Could they be? Yes. Is this some sort of threat to Chilcutt? No, so get over it.

b. Melissa has been UNABLE to product artifacts using soil from Onion Mountain using her methods and tubes methods. For the love of God, this PROVES that artifacts can only be produced under certain conditions....there is no point in arguing about it! Do we know those conditions? No. Do we need to know? Yes! Is this some sort of threat to tube? No, so get over it.

Well at least we seem to be on the same page.

Well - once again Hairman correctly states exactly how I feel. Thank you Hairyman. In my opinion this isnt about Tube or myself - its about finding good techniques to use in the field - or we may as well just stay home.

HM: You rock, babe. Nice one.

You know Hairyman, I did find this soil holds temperature very well.

I am writing in English, aren't I?

"topsoil

The upper part of the soil profile that is relatively rich in humus, which is technically known as the A-horizon of the soil profile.

Retrieved from "http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Topsoil" "

Usually dark and full of nutrients. This is not the stuff that was being lightly deposited on the prints with every passing vehicle.

How do you think pancakes cook? Back on track I see with the help of HM.

Remember that water, being so heavy, will migrate to the bottom of the plaster mix (small air bubbles migrate to the top side, water sinks, less dense plaster on top). That is why actual casts pulled from the ground have to be allowed to set in air lonmg after they have been removed and not be cleaned right away. You will lose small details if you you do.

So if this is the case why would the plaster surface coating in a track dry out so fast, in rings and then fold over on itself? Is it wicking? Or something else?

:new_lmaosmiley:

And, what about volcanic ash...what's the chances that material type traps heat?




Because I added more plaster after the top was already starting to set?

Out of all the casts Chilcutt examined, only a few displayed dermal ridges. The substrate has to be just right to retain them at all. Seems there are many more sightings than track events; often tracks can't be found for reasons of ground cover or the witness running like hell. Even where casting can be done, there may be no dermals showing just because the conditions weren't right to preserve them.

Some of what should have been the most compelling of track evidence, trackways going for miles in snow, unfortunately melted.

Perhaps there are newer casts showing dermal ridges and we just don't know about them yet.

Or perhaps there aren't ...
Which would be a pretty good reason why we don't know about them ..

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, that when people did start taking a close, scientific look at these
tracks, they seemed to have pretty much stopped being reported; or didn't get past the least
cursory examination..

Melissa ...

I have a serious request of you, and I'd be sincerely grateful if you could make some attempt to meet it. It's about basic respect. I don't recall ever having a conversation with you in person or on the forums here, so I'm scratching my head when your refer to bickering conversations, drama, and the like. I'd appreciate a lack of sarcasm (e.g., "Did you have a question?), abstaining from attributing false emotions to me when my post was extremely straightforward (e.g., I'm upset, I'm worried, I have an issue or problem, etc.; I'm not and I don't, as I reserve that kind of stress for important family-related problems), abstaining from conjoining my person as inoperable without Tube (e.g., he and I disagree on a lot, including several Sasquatch-related matters; quite separate from Tube, I worked in the cryptozoology field between 1980 and 1985 and currently have a job that includes cryptozoological research; I don't follow his web whereabouts [you're the second one I've read who's "located" him on the web, which I find odd]), and simply an overall and persistently mean tone.

At the same time, I can do my best to avoid inserting humorous one-offs that mean nothing to probably anyone but myself [i.e., my "Lemony Snickety" comment was referring to an author who writes in a very specific style and my poor phrasing of "If I understand correctly (please correct me if I understand incorrectly)" was what I was referring to].

That said ... if we can move on to important stuff ...

To establish my comprenhension level on dermal ridges, I've gone from about 10% to a current 70%. What I've learned has come from Tube, Rick Noll, Jimmy Chilcutt, you, and a half-dozen other sources. I've done no experimentation on my own and have no intention to. I've only gained a bit of understanding from the forums because it's difficult to navigate through so much fodder and non sequiters; I mention this because from you I've concentrated on your personal website essays, meaning I will go search for the posts you've referred to and correct my understanding, which I was trying to organize in list fashion (it's just the way I process best).

I am interested in standardization of methods, and the experiments both you and Tube have done and are doing are excellent to compare and figure out the differences in methods, to the extent that doing so could actually lead to some universal guidelines on how to cast potential Sasquatch foot tracks, or even hoax tracks for that matter.

I've read several times that you are not getting the same results. I've also read numerous posts from numerous sources that have inaccurately summarized Tube's methods on one or two or the entire collection of his casts (e.g., the temperature thread from a week or so ago--inaccurate generalities asserted about that, including some by you)--thus, my anal-retentive list of how he made casts. I wrote the list based on his posts and writings, and even after that I grilled him for quite a while to get down to as much accuracy as possible.

Having read your essays, I came up with the three points I understood about your experiments, but I did not want to go with a plethora of assumptions so left it brief and asked that you correct me. I did not see in your essays (and still don't) where you'd done the most basic of controls without your foot, thus the dermal ridge question. (Which was the question, with the question mark, at the end of the post, following the string of words--JOKE, that is just a JOKE, that is me just trying to be funny--see, I've failed, but I tried ;-).)

That's enough said for now. I will go look for your posts about controls and try to just keep it at that for now.

The most important thing I could confidently advise you on after putting together Tube's "list" is this (my comprehension is 100% on this one): For every cast you make, number it, record all parameters for it (Rick had a good list somewhere on stats, but I also think notes on what the initial intent for that cast is, what you expect to see, what you did see, etc.). This is why the list I made for Tube had a lot of "approximately"s and "various combinations" and so forth. He just didn't anticipate the casting would lead anywhere in that first month or two, so he lost some really valuable data until he did start to do so. I think that's a valuable lesson learned. The same cloud hangs over the actual OM cast/cast copies for me--it's simply not documented in any modicum of scientific fashion, which for me really pales its significance.

Okay ... over and out ... Dana.

(Damn, I'm wordy ... gotta work on that ... I'm not Roger's long-lost sister, I swear!!)

Sure, I can do that - can you?



Yeah. You did not ask me about "control casts without my foot" you accused me of not doing any control casts period. Im not sure how I should take that to be honest. I did infact tell you where you can find this information you requested. But, since you asked so nicely I will tell you. I did a control cast of my foot. Basically I stepped into molding clay and poured a cast. My control cast was done first of all to see IF dermals could even be casted at all ( if they couldnt be casted in clay - I just dont think it would happen period).. Might interest you to know, I had doubts I would even see them after the cast was completed in the clay. I also did this as a "reference" if you will. So I can compare to other casts and I can say without a doubt - yes, that is a dermal, no that is an artifact (its hard to stare at the bottom of my foot for very long :laugh: )

Of course I have only made casts of my foot -- my work is about Dermal Ridges.. Yes, I am doing testing now without my foot, but I started out with my foot because I was challenged and well - I got thrown off track yet again.

Yes, all of my casts show Dermal Ridges - some even show Flexion Creases. Why is it important that I have found dermals? Well, because first of all -------- wait for it....... I didnt think it was really possible *GASP*. Yep, I said it. I seriously doubted it was even possible to cast dermal ridges in any track, until Tube Challenged me. I did see the Onion Mountain Cast - and I was intrigued - and I did note the alleged Dermal Ridge Pattern on that cast, but at first I really didnt think it was possible. Infact my very first question about the Onion Mountain Cast had nothing to do with Dermal Ridges - it was about the "folding" on the sides of the cast, and the fact that they do not follow through in areas where the plaster are just as thick, that is still a question that has gone unanswered. Then, as I studied more, and talked to a few people who know more about Forensic Analysis, and I started my first set of tests - my opinion changed.

MY WORK IS NOT ABOUT TUBE... when will people figure that out?? Including you. You are comparing my entire body of work to tubes work - and it has nothing to do with him or his work. I am doing experiments to try and figure out why these artifacts happen - Unlike some, Im not shocked that artifacts do happen. I have worked with Plaster of Paris for many years - so hearing people discuss artifacts in any casting agent is not a shock to me. The question for me is not "are artifacts possible" - its "how do we recognize artifacts and how to we minimize them". Im sure you would agree this is an issue that must be addressed - if the casts being made are to be taken seriously and examined.

Unfortunately for both Tube and myself - he used the Onion Mountain Cast as his "reference" - so, my work must in some way address this specific cast, as it is the cast in question and the one he based all his work on, as I do not agree with his findings. That takes nothing away from the work he has done, I just do not agree with all of his findings. But, my mind is open to changing depending on what I find out.



I have not inaccurately summarized anything, and I can not do anything about the comments of others. I do however agree with some of the comments. Tube did INFACT tell me on more than one occassion to heat my water to 100 degrees, it will set up faster and I can get through my casting quicker (I was concerned with the number of years it might take to do my first round of tests a few months back). IF he was joking about this, or had another reason for telling me this, then he should have said that - but, no I didnt use 100 degree water until this most recent cast you see in this thread. Do you see the artifacts Tube speaks of? I dont. He never said a word to me about using 100 degree water because of the heat that day. Infact the first mention of it (that I remember) was by me. I questioned the temperatures after I did a practice cast here in texas and had some shocking results - temperature became a big issue for me at that point.

The fact remains - tube used the Onion Mountain Cast as his "reference" or "control" - he attempted to recreate the dermals and flexion creases on that cast - so, I have been challenged over and over again to re-create the work done by Tube. Im sorry but my opinion remains the same - and is even stronger now having done this most recent test - Dermal Ridges are possible in the soil at Onion Mountain. What I find interesting is where I am seeing the evidence of dermal ridges on this most recent cast, as it is showing dermals in the very same spots (but one) as the Onion Mountain Cast.. I cant change that. That takes nothing away from the work done and being done by Tube. As I have said a hundred times or more - his work needed to be done, and I think its great. He just didnt answer my questions - and well, he did challenge me - so this is really his fault... :laugh:



We agree here. I hope my work can help in standardizing how things are done in the field. I cant say that will happen, or even if people will want to take my advice, or if I will even have any advice to give after all this is over with - but Im willing to give it a shot. When I became involved in this research I was completely taken aback by the work being done by both Tube and Jimmy Chilcutt - I was excited to see that real science was being put into this research - and some things may be evaluated using Forensic Techniques. I found a niche where I could fit in and maybe contribute - do I regret that now... Sometimes. But, I will not stop what I am doing. I think this is important for every researcher to know - Dermal Ridges are possible in these tracks.

All of my casts are numbered and all information is recorded, including the current air temperature and humidity, before and after (if any changes are noted in temp and humidity). The tracks are measured along with all the finished casts. I note the soil temps before, during and after - and I also pay close attention to the mix ratios and record them. Before this is over - everyone will have more information than they ever really wanted. (If you all think Im long winded now - :laugh: )

But, for the last time, there are big differences between the work I am doing, and what Tube did - the cast you all see on this thread, was done because I was challenged, and I just cant turn down a challenge. But, I am very happy I did it.

Some were documented photographically, at least. I would think snow would be good for showing dermal ridges, if the prints are fresh enough. The original Bossburg casts has faint dermals in places. These weren't fresh enough:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/JimKarl.htm

Note the date. They haven't stopped being reported.

I don't know whether snow tracks would hold a dermal that could be recorded with casting, but I'm pretty sure, based on my experience with snow, that if it could even record a dermal, the conditions would have to absolutely perfect. Too wet and you get a slushy, muddy mess. Too dry and it's all powdery and flies around. And yeah, you'd probably want to find it very soon after it gets made.

Rick told me you could cast snow, but I'm guessing (and would love someone who knows more to weigh in) that the act of splashing the casting material on the track would likely melt fine detail like dermals even if the resulting cast was acceptable.

I think it's important to note there are other casts that show dermal ridges. Some have taken tube's work to indicate all dermal ridge detail is in question. I've even seen this implication in print. The case for authenticity doesn't rest on OM or a cast that may have been "touched-up" by the caster.

Melissa, I think you're doing a great job. Can you think of a way the healed scar marks on Wrinkle Foot could have been caused by casting?

WOW, How did I miss this....

Seeing his screen name on this site - is not "Locating him on the web". You seem to be inferring something I dont think you really want to. Mean tone?? You should see some of the mean comments he has made to me in private. I have always tried to remain civil with Tube - and for you to say anything different is just not right.

If defending my opinion is wrong - or my work... Then Tube has a lot of apologizing to do.

Please do not make this personal - it never has been, and if it does - its really unfortunate, for all involved. I would hate for this or any information to not get out because of personal attacks. That only tends to make people not care.

Didn't Krantz do it? I seem to remember that from an interview, possibly with Rick.

I would think good close-up photos would be good. Hikers and snowshoers would be more apt to carry cameras than Hydrocal, I'd think. I've seen an (unpublished) photo looking into a deep print from a trackway in Oregon, but I didn't think to look for dermals. They might have shown.

Seems most photos of trackways in snow are shot to show the enormous stride, not the fine detail of the prints themselves.

I guess I'm the other one. Neither one of us can compete with him when it comes to mean tone, IMO. I got it on the board. I was really hurt because he'd sent me such a nice PM earlier. I got it on one thread because I don't do experiments; you get it because you do. :wink:

I think you've behaved like a lady through some of the worse personal attacks I've seen on a message board (not refferring to this one). You really handled them well. I think I'd have been throwing eggs and tomatoes at the monitor. Good job.

In my interview with him, Rick surprised me by saying it's possible to cast in snow. My comment about melting was referring to fine detail like dermals. Even if the larger track was cast, I'm assuming that when the splash coat hits the snow, there will be some amount of melting on the surface of the track that would obliterate the dermals.


I'd love to see that picture. And yeah, when I'm snowshoeing I'm usually not trudging along with 20lbs of Hydrocal! :biggrin:


Absolutely. In fact, the trackway photos you linked to above were very much like all the examples I've seen. I think a lot of people discount snow tracks because of the enlarging that occurs with freezing and thawing, but as those photos show, even if the tracks themselves could have been within human dimensions when they were made, the stride, etc., are clearly not human-like and would not grow in length over time.

Click to view attachment

One of my last postings at Cryptomundo


.

This is especially interesting as I'm not aware of any flexion creases appearing in bigfoot tracks, no matter how clear the track, or what condition or composition of the soil involved. Any thoughts on this?

RayG

Your right - I havent seen flexion creases in any alleged bigfoot tracks either (anyone may call my attention to some if I am mistaken). I am thinking this could be due to a couple things - the body weight of this alleged animal may cause the foot to flatten out as it walks, and who knows what the bottom of this animals foot might look like - it reportedly walks in the woods all day without the luxury of shoes, it may have a much (for lack of better words)"fattier pad" on the bottom of its foot than a great ape.. I think at this point all options should be explored. I asked Apeman to post pictures at once point of ape feet - which is what really started my thinking in this respect.

I often wonder about this with the Onion Mountain Cast - yeah, this is one of those things I think about when I should be sleeping. As I have discussed before - the sides of the Onion Mountain Cast show a "folding", I wonder why I do not see that in other areas on the cast - where the plaster of paris is just as thick? One thing about plaster of paris is - if its going to show an inconsistancy in one area - it will follow through in the entire piece. This is not the case with the Onion Mountain Cast - and I am just not sure why yet.. I do have my own personal theory, which I have discussed a little - but I would rather do more work on this issue before I throw all my theories out there.

I am at work right now, but when I get home tonight I will post some pictures that I took of my own foot - that show better what I am talking about. Is my theory on this correct - dont know yet, and I may be completely off base. But, until I am able to duplicate this - I just cant say what caused this..

My point was with regard to new tracks that have been investigated lately, and are being held up as the
type of evidence that Chilcutt, Dr. Meldrum and others find convincing ...

The same point RayG was alluding to ...

Did you actually miss the point, or are you just ignoring it?

Or, is it possible they are out there, and those with them are simply not saying anything until we can find a better way to analyze them? Im not saying thats the case - but It wouldnt surprise me a bit.

Maybe Tube should be asked becuase it seems he replicated this attribute as well. Apparently no flexion creases on his own foot.

This thread brings up two things that bother me with regards to footprints.

1. Instead of discussing dermal ridges and flexion creases in tracks found and cast within the last year or so, the best evidence to date comes from 39 and 24 year-old casts. Has absolutely nothing been found more recently that shows clear dermal ridges or flexion creases?

2. Why do only some tracks show evidence of a midtarsel break, and none show evidence of flexion creases? Could they have thick padding on the soles of the feet? Possibly, but that would seem to indicate no requirement to have a grasping foot or prehensile toes. If they DO have grasping feet or prehensile toes, then at least some of the casts should show flexion creases. Shouldn't they?

RayG

Oh thats right - I almost forgot about that. I always wondered why his foot cast was minus the Flexion Creases.. Mine show up.

Could it be the casting agent I wonder? Hummm - well I just added another "to do" to my list.



I dont even have a guess right now. Let me look at it though. Always looking for the next mystery :laugh:

Well ray - I would like to point out, Great Apes have Flexion Creases, and they have thicker padded feet, and have the ability to grasp. One question you didnt ask and is actually kinda important - How many years has anyone really taken this issue seriously enough to look into it (Dermal Ridges and Flexion Crease evidence in casts)? I dont know the answer to that - but Im thinking it hasnt been long enough to get all the answers we need (or even all the possible theories for why and how and if).

Neither of us know for sure what has been found or not found in the last year - so, there could be a good cast sitting somewhere waiting for the technology or expertise to examine it. Who knows.. I am gonna finish the work on my casts before I take up mind reading - :laugh:

Yes, and that's something we already know about some primate feet.



It just seems rather curious, your own experimentation shows that flexion creases are shown in some of the casts you've made of a human foot, yet none have been reported in squatch casts.



Does it matter if we can examine casts from as far back as almost 40 years ago? It just seems rather frustrating to think that the best evidence we have so far comes from casts that are a quarter of a century old, or even older. That's the one thing that's made me increasing skeptical over the years, the evidence never seems to get any better.



One can always hope I guess, as one set of casts in the past 25 years isn't exactly promising. :new_tiredsmiley:

RayG

Melissa,

Maybe it has something to do with body weight. If one steps with all the weight from above you get creases... if you don't then you don't. These creases could end up being an indicator as to how a track was made.

I agree.

Look at the excellent detail both Tube and I had when we used the lightweight soils like Volcanic Ash and the Tricalcium Phosphate -- I think that has everything to do with bodyweight. This is holding true for the Soil I have from Onion Mountain.

Let me see if I can explain this....

When I used Tricalcium Phosphate - I was able to cast dermals and flexion creases, and i never thought they would hold up under the weight of the casting agent being poured (I couldnt even apply even a quarter of my bodyweight) and I had all this detail. Now, using the soil from Onion Mountain - its quite the opposite. If you look at the cast on this thread - you will see the center of the track shows no dermals or flexion creases -- but they are showing on the sides of the cast, that did not take my full bodyweight. While the soil is very powdery - it is deceptive, it WILL compact under the foot and it will hold up, not allowing your foot to pass straight through to the pan (as both tube and myself joked about during my first set of casts). Yet, the sides of the track - look like they would fall apart instantly if touched or disturbed in anyway.

Im not really sure why or how this is happening.. I find it very curious. You would think the more bodyweight the more detail - but this so far is not the case.

Well personally, this does not really alarm me. Why you ask? We dont know what the actual makeup of this animals foot is. We have a rough idea - but the actual physical characteristics are a mystery. There may be something about this animals foot, that makes it a bit different than our foot, or even that of a great ape..

But, I do hear what your saying - and I have thought this myself. But, we have to work with what we have, and make the best of it.

But thats just my opinion.

I must have misunderstood. I took you to mean that when people did start taking a close, scientific look at these tracks, they seemed to have pretty much stopped being reported.

As I recall there were about 100 in Meldrum's collection at Idaho State. According to the book, he now has about 200. It would seem some have been added, but I have no information on what ones. He did put out a call for casts. Does anyone know if more recent ones were acquired?

Awesome question, I wish he would personally answer this.

I would love to make a trip out west and see his collection myself.

When you said he put out a call for casts, what are you referring to? He asked me personally if I had any that he didn't have, and that would be no more than two.

I would like to see a book detailing all the casts known to date, that would be awesome. But, I don't know how much of a seller it would be, not everybody is as into casts as I am, and a couple buddies of mine.

I think he got all of Krantz's collection, and also Freeman's.

Other's collections are housed in museums in various places. Titmus has his casts in a small museum, and I'm not sure about Dahinden's collection. John Green does not have too many any more, he told me that himself.

For RayG - here are the pics I promised I would post. Note the side of my foot - this is the area I am talking about in that post on page 5 (?).

NO LAUGHING AT MY FOOT!!!

These should be in this order:

1. Non Weight-baring

2. Weight-baring

3. Heel Non Weight-baring

4. Heel Weight-baring

5. Heel from the side Weight-baring

Notice how the skin "bunches up". I am 125 pounds - I wonder what this would look like on a fully bipedal animal with a bodyweight of a minimum 500 pounds, with a much fattier pad on its foot (if that is the case).

Just things I think about when its 3 am and I cant sleep - hey, it beats thinking about work!!! :laugh:

Melissa have you thought about setting up an experiment where you have the substrate in front of you a few feet and then, while walking, leaving an impression? This to see how feasible the notion of leaving "side dermals" is in the middle of an actual walk. Or maybe you've already done this.


Anyway, your foot is fine! :laugh:

Melissa have you thought about setting up an experiment where you eat a lot and balloon up to 500 pounds and take some pics of your feet then?


:laugh:

Thanks for the photos of your foot. I did not think that human foot skin would deform that much when weight is put on it. Goes back to my corner to do some more thinking.



Scotto - Is your life insurance paid up :ohmy:

Thank you for the suggestion Yetifan Thats what I always do. Im not sure why but I dont get as good of an impression if I simply just step into the soil - maybe its my bodyweight? I am also looking for any hints of flexion of the foot - as this may point to more indicators of a hoax or not. I also think this is why I am not getting dermals in the arch of my foot - and only dermals and flexion creases near the outside of my arch. I think the walking motion "kicks up" the soil - from the arch.

*btw both me and my foot thank you* :laugh:



Ahh no. I will do most anything for this research. I will cross logs, spend days in the woods, deal with rain, heat, snakes and other various critters....

I refuse to gain weight.. :laugh:

I was kinda hoping you would offer to try this out scotto :biggrin:

You know Billkirby - I was surprised by that too.. How many of us actually see what our feet look like when we walk? I never even thought about it until all this. I was really surprised when I snapped the first picture..

Maybe bipto could ask him on th bipcast.

He had a page somewhere on the impossible-to-search BFRO site before the fall where he asked for casts from the public. (I thought he was remarkably polite about the BFRO in the book considering his reported remark just before he resigned.)

Question....

Are we sure JG or whomever poured the Onion Mountain Cast - poured the casting agent into the track? Or is this the assumption based on Tubes work?

If someone can direct me toward a quote or where this is discussed by someone, I sure would appreciate it.

Thanks

This is from Tube's site: ( Have you read it yet ? )
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm



Perhaps DDA can confirm this, next time he looks in.


Of, course to be sure, you would have to ask John Green .
Haven't you had some correspondence with him ?

Thank you Greg - but Im asking for a more specific quote. While simply pouring is what some probably did do - that may not have been the case with all researchers at that time. I am wondering if there is a specific quote out there somewhere - saying JG poured this cast, and how he did it

Yes, I have read Tubes website, is there some kind of prize involved?

Well, if he did pour it, how he did it , would have been .............." he poured it .. " ...

Wouldn't such a quote have to come from Green himself ? Have you e-mailed him ?


Tube points out that the OM casts bear the signs of having been poured, and there was concurrence
from Dr. meldrum ...

Why don't you e-mail Dr. Meldrum ?

Well I would have to disagree with that - Tubes own test cast in this soil should tell him and YOU a lot about that statement - can you guess what it is??? Come on Greg - your a smart guy,,,, can you figure it out??


Im waiting -- I know what it is !! Its right there --- can you point to it?? Give it a shot.

Can we stop baiting each other, please? If you two can't get along I'm going to lock you in a room together for a week.

Oh, ok. :smile:

But, the question still stands. Its a serious question - and Im actually surprised Tube hasnt pointed this out.

Questions are great. Questions phrased to piss the other guy off are not. That's all I'm saying.

I completely agree with you.

I am going by memory on this from the time when I was reading all the archives before I formally joined the forum. There someone was discribing how to pour the casting material over an the back of a mixing spoon so that the casting material whould not just "plop" into the footprint. Someone else discribed how they used an over-wide paint stiring stick (that they had used to mix the material) and let it run down the stiring stick to where the casting material would gently impact the print from less than an inch drop. And at an controled rate. So people in the past did have a concern about allowing the casting mateial just going "splat" into the print.