I remember seeing something like that too. Not sure who posted it though..

I have a thought - and if I can stay up late enough tonight, I plan to test it out. I will post what I find.

Scott Herriott strongly encouraged me to post in this thread.

A great deal of discussion has ensued over the testing of the current batch of Onion Mountain soil. Indeed, I've tested it twice and neither test cast exhibited casting artifacts. The first test was with straight soil and the second was with the sample sifted through a #60 sieve to test for the effects of fine particle size. I believe, but do not know , that the failure to exhibit casting artifacts is due to the organic content of the current sample. The obvious question is whether or not the current soil sample is equivalent to the soil that John Green made his casts in back in 1967.

In On the Track of the Sasquatch , page 47 Green writes;
“Mr. Ryerson had done all he could to keep the tracks undisturbed—even interfering with his own road-building operations, but he could not stop all traffic. Cars had already wiped out the tracks on the travelled part of the road, and every vehicle that passed stirred up a heavy cloud of dust, so that the tracks would obviously lose detail quite quickly.”

That "road building operations" were occurring is also evidenced by the large tire tracks from earth moving equipment seen in the photo.

Though Kathy Moskowitz did not personally collect the current soil sample, it appears that there was not a "road building operation" occurring at the time of the current sample collection.

If so, it is entirely possible that the current soil sample is not at all equivalent to the soil Green made his casts in for the simple reason that "road building" would be uncovering a great deal of non topsoil substrates. These non topsoil substrates would then become part of the "heavy cloud of dust" that Green notes, and become deposited in the tracks which would "lose detail quite quickly".

Whether the current soil sample is equivalent to the soil Green made his casts in or not is ultimately a matter of inference . But my claim that there is strong evidence that the CA-19 cast textures exhibit casting artifacts and not Bigfoot's dermal ridges stands, as we have direct evidence in the form of the cast textures themselves that this process occurred.

Take a careful look at the two cast photos. The photo with the included scale is CA-20, another cast made by John Green which was part of the Blue Creek Mountain - Onion Mountain series. The other cast is one made by Jeff Meldrum in 1999. Meldrum's cast was of the foot of a human test subject named Lon Erickson. Meldrum's cast was made in natural soil, wind blown loess native to Idaho. The small circle in the bottom middle of the photo of Meldrum's cast is the point of first impact of the poured cement slurry. The large arched furrows that surround the point of first impact are casting artifacts. They can only be casting artifacts, as they obviously do not represent human dermal ridges, and that part of the foot has no flexion creases.

Now compare Meldrum's cast with CA-20. Assuming that CA-20 is an original cast, or an accurately made copy, it's obvious and clear we are seeing the same kind of casting artifact texture. The looping furrows with adjacent ridges are CLEARLY not dermal ridges or flexion creases.

Since it is unambiguous that we have casting artifacts on at least one cast in the series, it demonstrates that the soil the cast was made in was able to support this process.

That may have been me, that is what I've done for quite a while. I use the spoon as a "buffer" so the casting medium does not leave an impression of it's own in the print itself.



BTW, good to see you here, Tube!!!

Rick Noll's criticism of my use of water at 100 degrees Fahrenheit proved useful, as it made me wonder what the range of slurry temperatures that would support the development of casting artifacts. Several days ago I decided to go for broke, and make a particularly cold-slurry test cast. I ran straight cold water from my tap which I mixed with plaster of Paris. The final slurry temperature was 60 degrees Fahrenheit. The substrate temperature was 69 degrees Fahrenheit. I didn't weigh out the plaster or water, but I would say it was on the thick side. I poured the slurry immediately after mixing. The substrate was virgin volcanic ash.

The photo that includes the flashlight is of a copy of CA-19, showing the texture claimed by Jimmy Chilcutt to be Bigfoot's dermal ridges. The other cast photo is of my test cast. As you can clearly see, casting artifacts can form with slurry temperatures much lower than 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and rather spectacularly so. The test cast clearly demonstrates that known casting artifacts exhibit a "ridge flow pattern" that is a function of the shape of the track they were made in.

Wow. Sure looks very similiar, Matt.

Dayuum.

Well, water tempature is not a factor then.

How many casts have you done tube that have shown these lines vs. how many haven't? Is there a percentage, like 50% or something?

Here are pictures of the actual soil I am using, I did say I would post these pictures.

These pictures were taken after a casting - so please pardon the few "clumps". This is very powdery stuff - I can attest to that after working very hard to get it out of my eyes and off my skin (and out from under my nails) for the last couple weeks.

Hmmm, I think I've lost count. I've probably made 40 or 50 total test casts. Eventually I found various substrate-cement combinations like plaster of Paris and volcanic ash that would show casting artifacts every single time.

Do you mean what percentage of substrates I've tested will support casting artifacts?

Well, I guess I need to change my question. So, you know certain combinations always show casting artifacts. Besides Plaster of Paris/volcanic ash, what else shows the same artifacts and what doesn't show casting artifacts (ie.,...plaster of paris/ash always shows; plaster of paris/sand never show; plaster of paris/loam shows artifacts xx% of the time, etc...something along that line...)

"He started it" :laugh:

Similar, but no continuity, no clear ridges.

The other cast from the trackway seems to have been brushed aside. I wish I had a picture of it.

I think your monitor may be on the fritz.

My mother hated popular music. Only classical music was worthy of entering her sublime, erudite ears. She pulled out all the canards about rock music that some on this board are no doubt familiar with; "They aren't singing, they're screaming", and "You can't understand the words", and one of my favorites from my mother; "The Beatles caused the drug abuse epidemic".

Nevertheless, my mother had certain "guilty pleasures" like the Tijuana Brass, and "Waterloo" by ABBA. Since classical music is released on albums and not singles, it was surprising for me to find that my mother had purchaced a 45 single for herself; My Sweet Lord by George Harrison. She liked it as a catchy tune but it had that deeper, positive meaning that she also liked; it was a Good Christian Song.

At the time, I was more or less obsessed by The Who and Led Zeppelin, so "My Sweet Lord" was not really on my musical radar screen. Strangely, I think I became aware of the lyrics to "My Sweet Lord" by reading the far-out book Media Sexploitation by Wilson Bryan Key. His book claimed that "subliminal messages" were being put into advertising. Key claimed that the lyrics to "My Sweet Lord" could be thought of as "subliminal advertising" for Harrison's religion; Hare Krishna. This claim intrigued me, and I put on my mother's 45 of the song and listened closely. Indeed, the background vocals clearly contained "Hare Krishna", "Hare Rama", and Krishna Krishna".

Well this was great news for me! What my mother thought was a Good Christian Song was really a song about Hare Krishna! And apparantly she never noticed! I had my trump card in the endless rock and roll music wars. Like Chilcutt setting the stakes very high with his "I stake my reputation on it" comment, my mother had also set the stakes very high. She claimed to me that she had acheived a very high score on something called the "Seashore Aptitude test"; http://www.thehoya.com/guide/032604/guide2.cfm and so was highly musically qualified in both taste and objective measurement.

I put "My Sweet Lord" on the turntable and stood by while my mother listened. I expected that simply telling her what the background vocals said would be enough for her. I was surprised she couldn't hear what I heard. I even "lip-synched" along with the background vocals so she could hear it. No dice. She simply couldn't perceive the obvious, or if she did, she simply couldn't bring herself to admit it.

This event proved something of an epiphany for me. Instead of "winning an argument" with my mother, I felt deeply sad for her. Either she had a fundamental perceptual defect, or her fanatical belief that "My Sweet Lord" was a Good Christian Song overwhelmed her abiltity to admit she had made a big mistake.

When I see the kind of things that LAL posts, I am reminded of my mother's advocacy of "My Sweet Lord" as a Good Christian Song. I no longer argue with the LALs of the world, as it serves no productive function.

Like smoking crack, obsessing about Bigfoot is a difficult habit to break. It's even stranger for a Sasquatch skeptic like myself to continue obsessing about Bigfoot. Whether or not the animal really exists Bigfootery has a profound psychological component, at least for some. But the emotional attractiveness of the enterprise does not make any of the physical evidence for this animal real.

Posting on the Internet about Bigfoot certainly serves a social and psychological function. I would be a hypocrite if I denied I do it myself. I can stay here and argue incessantly about slurry temperatures, "ridge flow patterns", volcaniclastic sediments, bifurcations, deltas, flexion creases and all that. But the hard fact is that no surface texture on any putative Sasquatch cast can be proof of Sasquatch. The advocates simply need a body, and nothing less.

The LAL's of the world will never accept that CA-19 does not exhibit "Bigfoot's Dermal Ridges". My mother died believing that "My Sweet Lord" was a Good Christian Song, and the LALs of the world will always believe in the Infallibility of Chilcutt.

'Taint so.

So, did you find any dermals in your 2 test casts?

Just curious.

I agree with Hairy Man

Your a rare bird Tube...the ability to cut through and clarify what your looking at is a gift.
So goes the very crux of most arguments on this board, what is considered good evidence of Bigfoot's possible existence and the perceptual defect you speak of in my opinion resonates in some of the most revered and visible people in this field, evident by the fact that most mainstream scientists choose not to come aboard.

Ok...now I'm lost. So "My Sweet Lord" isn't a Christian song, and the LAL's in the world won't believe Onion Mountain dermals are anything other than dermals. Why is that an issue? You have produced artifacts during casting...I'd like to know under what conditions they are produced...what casting materials produces artifacts in what types of soils...what effects does water tempature or soil tempature or amount of water have on them as well. Since you've done the experiments, it is helpful to know what the results are...not just that artifacts have been produced.

Gotta say I agree with Hairyman.. Thats exactly why I started my testing.

There's only one of me, I'm not a Christian, I've never said I think there are no casting artifacts on that cast, and I think Jimmy Chilcutt knows more about fingerprints than you do. I don't know if all the ridges on OM are casting artifacts or not, but I know the ones you showed are no more of an exact match than Wallace left is a match for Blue Creek Mountain.

There's a second cast from the trackway showing the same ridges, but fainter, evidently from dust deposited in the print by a passing vehicle. Just how does that happen after the casting is completed?

Brand new LCD monitor. Nothing wrong with it.

The lines do not connect.

This is better:

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

Better?

IMO, it still looks very similar...

Click to view attachment

No continuity? No clear ridges? My sweet Lord, not even in these?




RayG

How do we know Tube didn't sculpt his casts to looke like the Onion Mt. impressions ?



Just trying to be objective... :wink:

Or just trying to beat someone to the punch? :biggrin:

Ray, your rose-colored sneeze guard on your monitor must be malfunctioning. :laugh:

Well - can anyone tell me why they stop abruptly on the Onion Mountan Cast (in the area Matt points out with his flashlight) and not on Matt's cast? Matt's seem to keep flowing down the edge of the cast, even with obstructions - hell even if they didnt go all the way along the edge of Matt's cast - they sure extend a hell of a lot farther than on the Onion Mountain Cast.. Can anyone tell me why? Better yet, can anyone tell me how he did it?

Matt told me, I would be surprised at how easy it is to create these artifacts - I am still waiting to be surprised.

And btw - for all of you who use hydrocal, have any of you seen these types of artifacts in your casts? funny how there are so many out there who use hydrocal, and there are only a few casts (known) that are said to possibly have dermal ridges... I would think if this is so easy - we should be seeing this on just about every cast out there... Heck I would love to hear from those who use plaster of paris (I know your out there) and have had these types of results. If no one speaks up - that tells me there is a variable missing - what is that variable? To not ask these questions is being less than objective, in my opinion.

Anyone?

Just because these artifacts happen in Volcanic Ash - or soils native to Washington State, that does not mean they will happen in every soil in this country - which is roughly 50,000.00 different types.

Matt points to the possibility that the soil I have today - may not be of the same make up that the soil was at that time -- that may be true, but its still not Volcanic Ash - and it is soil native to the area of Onion Mountain. In his latest test he uses water that is 60 degrees, because of what DDA told him - one problem, DDA told him 40-50 degrees.. And, why did he go back to the Volcanic Ash? Because thats where he has his best results. I find it interesting he could not duplicate his artifacts in the Onion Mountain Soil - that tells me it may be only possible in specific types of soil - and if thats the case, that puts a whole new spin on things in my opinion (dont cast in Volcanic Ash). Tube has also used soil heavy in Clay.. Well, the Soil at Onion Mountain is high in Clay - so, why didnt I get these results? Is Tube getting his results because he is using Soils that are comprised of almost only one mineral - he says in his latest test he used "Virgin Volcanic Ash".... kinda makes me wonder 2 things, but thats for another day.

Tube says some of us will never believe his work is true - regardless of what he shows. Because he hasnt proven his work in the soil of Onion Mountain - thats why. So, call it what you want - but I will continue my work until I have satisfied my curiosity. I have said this a hundred times - yes, artifacts are possible, and Im shocked that people even had to be told. But - that does not mean they will happen under all conditions. I am working to find out what those specific conditions are, or as close as I can possibly get, which is more information than we have right now.

Tube's 2 casts in the Onion Mountain Soil go along way to validating my work - as we both have not duplicated the Artifacts he has been able to create in Volcanic Ash. Im curious as to why.

Here's a thought... A very good musician once said to me that to do the "comedy-bad-piano-player-routine" requires you to actually be a very good piano player in the first place.

I've done a fair bit of successfull casting & molding over the years (albeit not animal casts in soil - purported or not) - but I've duplicated detailed skin textures without error - so I like to think I'm not talking out my hind end (not entirely anyway :laugh: ). But - before trying to make bad casts (which is what artifacts represent) and figure out the reasoning behind the artifacts, I suggest it would be helpfull for the tester to already be an accomplished caster/molder.

Also, what have the manufactureres of the gypsum products to say on the subject? Could save you a heck of a lot of work :wink: . I always used to phone the helplines if I ran into trouble.

Well - they told me its not true gypsum for one.

Like I said, I have no doubt artifacts are possible - and having worked with plaster of paris doing molds etc for more years than I care to think about, I think I am pretty good. But I get your point. Its my knowledge of this agent that got me involved in this to begin with ----- yeah, I should have kept my mouth shut. But, this latest cast by tube does prove the point I made initially.. If these ridges happened they should extend - exactly the way tubes did, regardless of obstructions - why didnt they? Tube has not been able to answer that question. The thickness remains the same on the Onion Mountain cast down that side and to the heel and around the toes - so, why do we not see these same artifacts there? I know enough about POP to know, if you have an inconsistancy in one spot - it will follow through. Tubes latest cast proves that (and I believe that was with Hydrocal)..

Can anyone explain it?

Better yet, why are those longitudenal ridges in Tube's casts at all ?

According to Dr. Meldrum and Mr. Chilcutt, the lengthwise ridges, along the side of the foot, are not found
on any human or non-human primate; and are compelling evidence for the existence
of a living, non-human North American primate ...

Could they be skin folds? I have similar looking folds on the sides of my foot..

Dont know for sure, but Im looking for ways to distinguish artifacts from potential dermals. I really cant speak to that yet. But - I do have folds that are similar (smaller) but similar. Did you see my pretty foot pics? And I have been able to cast these - that was in my first set of casts a few months back.

If no one speaks up, that could be for a lot of reasons, and doesn't neccessarily mean there is a variable missing. Just like there's 50 thousand types of soil, there could be 50 thousand reasons for someone not landing on this thread and putting in their two cents. This could also apply for the "dermals" not running all the way down the side of the Onion Mountain cast, there's probably many variables to be taken into account when it comes to the replication of every single detail. IMO, it doesn't matter if the lines run all as far down on the Onion Mountain cast as the lines on Matt's cast, it's the fact that he was able to reproduce the exact same kind of lines that matters. Arguing about the lines not going all the way down the side of the cast is like arguing about the sky not being blue enough on a bright, sunny day. For all we know, there are cast sitting out there right now on a shelf collecting dust that exhibit this same type of "dermal" effect that Matt has so brilliantly reproduced, with cold water nonetheless. First, one of the main points of contention was that Matt used hot water, but now that he's used cold water and produced the "dermal" effect, it's on to something else. What is it now, a 10+/- degree difference? Big deal. It's easy to speculate on the why's and how's of Matt's work until he decides to reveal those details. In the meantime, about the only thing one can do is to work hard at producing the same results on their own. I also don't think we should be jumping to any conclusions about his motives. Just like you stated about there being 50K types of soils out there, there's probably gonna be 500K+ different variables to take into account when a cast is taken in situ. I'm just impressed that Matt was able to reproduce the lines period. I do have to commend you on your work also though. Please keep it up and keep striving for the truth.

I believe in asking all the questions possible to ferret out every possibility imaginable, but I don't think it's a good idea to grasp onto something of minimal importance and use that as an arguing point against the validity of someone's work. I'm sure he'll fill us in on the details of how it was done in due time. In the mean time, I'm personally giving Matt the benefit of the doubt because of my own feelings toward his high-level of credibility. If there was a glaring difference between the lines, then I'd also be pointing it out...but in this case, I think Matt's nailed it. Fact is, he's very good at what he does, and I'm impressed.

Dammit girl, then you need to move on! :laugh: There are far more "accurate" products out there.
I can't answer your last question Mel', as I've never tried to purposely make a bad mold/cast - it was just a suggestion that anyone trying to should be fairly accomplished prior to the off. Easier to know what you are doing wrong, if you are grounded in the subject before hand.

My thoughts about the suppliers were that they may possibly have run across this problem before, and short-cut you to finding answers a bit.

Edited to add: I obviously type slower than Vol'. No intended glossing over his post or ignoring it - it simply wasn't there last time I looked :laugh: .

I agree - Matt's work told us alot.. I have never said I didnt think his work was important. But - it does matter how these things happen, especially if it boils down to human error.. Tube told me straight out - I would be surprised how easy it is to duplicate these "artifacts" based on what he did - simple answer is, I have not - so its not that easy. Something is missing from this variable - and I dont know why Tube wont answer the questions about how and why this happens. If his work is correct - I should get these artifacts using 100 degree water, a thicker plaster mix, and a straight pour. He has done this not just in Volcanic Ash - but soil high in clay (which Onion Mountain Soil is very high in Clay) -- so, there is a question hanging out there -- and it really is that important.. I noticed you made note of my comment about Tubes water temperature - that is something I never made an issue of, until recently when it was thrown in my face. What I said is really no different than Tube saying he tried and quit after two casts, and part of the reason being he doesnt think the soil is the same now, as it was then - regardless of the fact that it would take a major catastrophy to change that soil composition - and nothing even remotely close to that has happened (according to the Soil Scientists with the NRCS). Which is why they do not take samples all that often - and the vastness of the area. It was said to me 95 degrees is not 100 degrees - well, 60 is not between 40 and 50 degrees.. Water changes as it heats - the density changes - and it does have a dramatic effect on any casting agent, starting with the fact it does set up faster.

I truly appreciate your kind words about my work Vols - and I think highly of you. If we want science involved in this - this is part of the process, nothing happens without a reason - and there is a reason why I have not been able to duplicate Matts work, I just havent figured it out yet, and no worries I wont stop.


Woodshadow - I musta mis-spoke - I dont think Im doing anything wrong, I think there is something missing from what I was told to do, and Im just trying to figure out what that is. Sorry if I wasnt clear

Im using plaster of paris - because that is what the Onion Mountain Cast was made with, not Hydrocal. Im not sure what would happen if I switched to hydrocal - I may just do that down the road. It may be a hydrocal issue, but Tube did say he had the same results when he used Plaster of Paris once.

No - I completely understand your reasons for using Plaster of Paris for this series experiments. My comment about your "years" using it for molding was a jokette :wink: . For my uses I found it totally lacking for reasons including pot-life, accuracy & strength (it was the first casting plaster I employed as it was regularly available from a major pharmaceutical chain).

Edited to add: Stale beer is supposed to extend pot life in plaster (honest - look it up :biggrin: ) . I would be happy to help you in these experiments. If you send me a case I will gladly send you the stale remains :laugh: .

No its all good -- I did catch that you were joking too. I would agree - hydrocal coming on scene was a great thing... Plaster of Paris does really (pardon my french) suck. :laugh:

Sorry but I gotta respond to this.

How much more time is necessary, before someone steps up and says "Excuse me, but can you share why and how this is happening??" Should I have given him another year??

Tubes level of crediblity? What has that got to do with anything? Tube hasnt told any of us -- WHY this happens,,, Just that we should believe him because he is showing us it happens.... You cant possibly believe that Vols.. You wouldnt take anyone's word for anything in this - but you will take Tubes as the gospel? Jimmy Chilcutt does this for a living - and has a reputation that is untouchable - and yet you will not simply believe him because he says so.. So, why tube?

I never said Tube is not a credible person. I am saying I do not have enough information to have an INFORMED opinion about his results. I have asked him for the information to make that decision - he has instead only challenged me to do this myself. You should want to know how he came about these results.

I must have read this claim now a dozen times from you. I suggested you use VOLCANIC ASH. You did not.

In this post:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=317370

we see this comment;

Well, I was told Tricalcium Phosphate is very high in Silicon - the only difference I was told is, I believe Iron.. At least thats what I was told.

From this I would gather you have little or no formal chemical or scientific training. You appear to have a fundamental ignorance of what it is to duplicate another researcher's methodology.

It's as if I gave you a recipe for chocolate chip cookies and told you go to the store and buy some chocolate chips. Instead, you buy Skittles, then argue loudly with me that Skittles are the same as chocolate chips. You bake them into cookies and, surprise, you don't get chocolate chip cookies. You then go on and on, here and on your personal blog about how you can't "duplicate" chocolate chip cookies, subtly implying that there is something wrong with MY methods.

Your logic is so faulty that I hesitate to even be drawn into arguing with you.

I haven't taken anyone's word as gospel and I do not "believe" Matt just because he says so. I said that I was giving Matt the benefit of the doubt, and that's what I'm doing. Matt has never given me any reason to doubt his word or his motives. That goes a long way with me. Credibility means a lot in this field. If he had been a newbie just arriving on the scene with these claims, then I'd be a little more anxious, but what I know of Matt from reading many of his postings on this forum and through our own public and private correspondance, I feel that I have a good idea of his intentions and therefore I'm willing to offer him the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Of course I want to know how he came about these results, but given what I know of Matt, I'm sure there's a very good reason that he hasn't devulged the "why's" and "how's" of this process just yet. I'm sure he'll lay it all out in due time, but If he doesn't, then I'll be willing to cross that bridge at that time.

I don't feel that it's my place to set a time limit for Matt. If he hasn't devulged why this happens as speedily as you'd like, then you should really take that up with him via PM. JMHO.

[edit]On second thought, I see a lot in this thread that should be taken to PM.

Are you going to tell me to Learn to Walk before I run ?? I can not use VOLCANIC ASH - as it is illegal to ship. How you come into contact with Virgin Volcanic Ash is beyond me.

Once again - instead of answering questions (which should be so simple to do) - you attack. That tells me you have no intention of answering the very questions that bolster your theory. Makes me wonder why you wont answer these very simple questions, if you have all the answers. Why do you choose to make this such a tense situation. Either you can answer the question or you can not - if you can then please do so, if you cant - simply admit it. Its that simple. Dont you think part of your responsibility (and mine with my own work) is to explain how we achieved the results we did? Im not sure why you wont do that. Its not like you have heard this only from me. The difference between you and I - is I can admit I dont have the answers.

And, by the way - you know exactly why I didnt use Volcanic Ash - and my suspicions were confirmed - there is NO VOLCANIC ASH on Onion Mountain. So, there is no reason for me to use Volcanic Ash. Period. You simply choose to not acknowledge that as well.

Im not the one who put out these claims tube - that was you.. Im sorry you didnt expect someone to come along and ask these very questions. Your defensiveness speaks volumes.



And what is your education and experience in evaluating Dermal Ridges - are you formally trained in Forensic Examination ? I may not have any education in minerals - but I have common sense enough to admit when I dont know something ----- and ask people who do.

Dont argue with me - just answer my question. There is no arguement necessary - and I think its disingenious on your part to yell at me for simply stating facts. Have you told us How and Why this happens? Did you answer Kathys questions? Do you know? Instead you attack me and LAL..

Talk about faulty logic. Glass houses, glass houses.

I have, and he wont answer it there either.

There is no reason whatsoever - for why he will not give researchers in this the information necessary to evaluate whether the conditions they are working under will infact create artifacts. Did he do this to help educate the researchers in this field - or to simply create slight of hand and expect us to believe it because he posts a picture?

If the arguement is he is trying to prevent future hoaxing -- well - kathys questions were not that specific.. And, like I said, he wouldnt even answer it in PM's. So, I am doing this work myself.

I think several posters in this thread should tone down their level of defensiveness a bit.

Like someone wise once said - "Save the drama fo' yo' mama!"

On that we completely agree. This was never supposta be about me vs. tube - others have turned it into that, and I am very disappointed that has happened. I do hope that that will stop, so people can actually understand what my work is about.

I just dont know if that will happen.

This almost exactly the same thing that happened in another thread, but then it was Rick Noll, and now it's Matt Crowley. Except when Rick Noll was questioned like this, it was considered rude and disrespectful. When Rick was asked to present evidence that he was holding back, some came to his defense. Now the same thing is happening here with Matt. Rick very rarely shows us why things happen. He just presents information that he is willing to give out, and tells us to figure out the rest. That's ok with most. Why doesn't that work for Matt?

Sometimes this forum just confounds me.

We are arguing about properly replicating casting artifacts without knowing the exact conditions of the soil, the temperature of the water, the exact mixing ratio used, etc. for the original cast. John Green doesn't have any of the soil from the day the cast was made. The casting procedure was not documented properly, so all we have is John Green's words. Many just accept that. These casting experiments are flawed from the get go, in that an event is trying to be replicated without knowledge of some very important variables.

Matt has shown us that casting artifacts can occur, and they can resemble what some are calling dermal ridges in these casts. Are these what are seen in the Onion Mountain cast? Looks an awful lot like it. Why did they occur? Not one of us knows, because we weren't there, and the casting was not properly documented. All we have is the cast, anectdotal evidence, and a lot of opinions from people who have never studied an actual sasquatch foot, but who will tell you exactly what sasquatch dermal ridges are supposed to look like.

It's like many of us just cannot come to terms with the fact that no matter how much you study or test the evidence, you will end up back where you started. The majority of evidence that we study for hours and hours on end is flawed, simply because it wasn't collected and/or documented properly. In instances where attempts at replication are made, the results can only be interesting but inconclusive simply because we have no idea how the original event truly occurred.

How Matt achieved the casting artifacts is important to know so others know of possible ways they may occur. However, whatever the conditions, we have no idea whether or not they match what happened when the Onion Mountain cast was made.



Nobody's reputation is untouchable. Jimmy Chilcutt is a latent fingerprint examiner by profession. The study of non-human primate dermatoglyphics is not truly his job. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that anyone has looked into his non-human primate studies to see what he has and has not studied, how knowledgable he truly is on the subject, and how accurate his studies have been. We can look into his record as a criminal investigator, but not so much his studies of non-human primates. Being an expert in one field of study in no way qualifies a person to be an expert in others. The smartest people can come to the stupidest conclusions. Nobody is perfect and beyond questioning or reproach. Not Chilcutt, not Meldrum, not Crowley, not anyone.

Am I the only one that sees the benefit in this work being how not to introduce artifacts when casting a possible sasquatch print?

No - because thats exactly what my work is about.

Nope, not at all. I think there are quite a few of us who find a lot of value in what he's done.

P.L. Pinkham wrote:




In my opinion, the quotes above are from one of the best posts I've read in a loonnnngggg time on this forum. I strongly suggest anyone who hasn't read the entire post to do so. It's four above this one. Excellent work, P.L.


:appl: :appl:

http://www.seattlepotterysupply.com/Mercha...;Category_Code=

What is your evidence that volcanic ash is "illegal to ship"?

I don't even want to know what the shipping on a 100 pounds would be. The 50 pound buckets of Ultracal I buy are bad enough.