I was infact told that by a store out in Oregon and Washington - along with a pottery store here in Texas. Who by the way sold pumice, but it was not nearly as fine as volcanic ash. But we already had this conversation.

Im done answering your questions until you start answering them. Its time for you to finally give the information many have requested. Unless all you can do is go after me, which I find hysterical to be honest. Im not the one making the claims - and you think I need to defend myself - :laugh:

After reading and looking at all the evidence on both sides of this issue I've come to the definite conclusion that tube and Melissa are married.

God, then they are doomed.

I WANT A DIVORCE !!!!!!!! :laugh: .. JK.

If anyone mistakes my determination and drive for the truth as a dislike of Tube - you are sadly mistaken. I actually think quite highly of Tube. We are both passionate about the work we do, and that can make for very lively debates and/or discussions. But this needs to stop being about me vs. tube - and it should get back to the work, and what we can learn.

Wildman - I am really confused as to why you seem to think I do not agree with the fact that tube has created Dermal Ridges - I thought I was very clear when I posted that he did infact create them. I am asking questions and working to find out HOW AND WHY this happens. You are reading way more into my posts than you should be.

Either your interested in the issue or your not. I am sorry you are not. But, there is a benefit to anyone who goes out into the field and actually creates casts - Im sorry you dont see that either, but thats not my issue to deal with. I will put out the information for those who want it - and those who dont, can simply ignore it.

*edited for clarity*

For the newcomers to this thread, let me sum up:

tube has proven that on some occasions, casting artifacts that resemble dermal ridges do occur. Melissa has proven that sometimes they do not occur.

Rinse and repeat.

I'm reading more into posts?

I have no clue where you got any of the above from. I don't remember ever stating anything that would make you come to the conclusions you just did.

I have come to terms with the fact that the known information is less than perfect. But, that does not negate the necessity for doing the work I am doing. If I mis-understood you or didnt get your point, I do apologize.

You bring up a good point in this quote as well though. Your right, we will always get inconclusives etc. until we figure out how to collect evidence properly.. And, my work speaks directly to this issue. We can not continue to complain that no one takes our work seriously if we refuse to look at what may be causing the issues that we keep complaining about. Do you want to understand some causes of these ridges? Or dont you? Personally I do, and I know many other researchers who do as well.

I wont end up back where I started - because if my work is looked at correctly, it will be specifically about going forward. I hope I am able to get that point across, eventually.

*edited for not getting the quote right*

This is going to sound completely smart-assed, so I apologize now for how this comes across:

What exactly are you attempting to do? I'm not being an ass here, I just want to understand what it is you are trying to demonstrate by your tests.

No matter how I phrase that, it sounds like I'm a complete a-hole, doesn't it? :laugh:

No - not at all. Least I didnt take it that way :laugh:

I am attempting to find out what conditions will or will not cause these artifacts. I am taking exact measurements - of everything. Is it too much water? is it too much casting agent? what caused the artifacts Matt showed can happen. I am starting out with the Onion Mountain area - because that is what I was challenged with first - and because the cast is a good representation of what Matt calls Artifacts and Mr. Chilcutt says maybe dermal ridges. While my work may not speak to all areas of this country - I do think it will show it is necessary to understand how small changes in your mixing - or temperatures can create such a dramatic change. Its my hope that this will help set the stage for a better understanding of the materials we work with out in the field for casting tracks.. Yes, small changes can really make a difference.

We need to understand these things. Thats all Im trying to do. If it helps great - if not, well thats ok too. All Im asking is that people keep an open mind to what I am doing until I put out my results.

Right now, all we know is that they can happen - we dont know what can cause them. I hope that answered your question Its the best I can do with a face full of soil - at 10:00 at night... its been a long day..

Now — and again, I'm not being a smartass — wouldn't it be safe to assume that those who work with these materials professionally, or at least those who have worked with them for many years, might already have this information? Would maybe the manufacturers of these casting products know the conditions in which things such as artifacts occur? You would think so, as they probably get people calling with complaints when something doesn't go their way. "Why is my cast all wrinkly?!" :laugh:

Instead of just random testing, maybe there should be more effort made in understanding the products used by discussing it with those who know the most about them.

I know you are enjoying this, and there is nothing wrong with experimenting. You are probably one hell of a track caster now, that's for sure! Still, I wonder if the answers are already out there, and we're just doing things the hardest way possible. Or not. I'm just thinking out loud.

If we just give it a rest for a couple ( more/less ) of years , I'm confident there will be
a cost effective scanning technology, that will be able to create microscopically detailed
images ( holograms ) of any impression we wish to examine.


I also wish to predict , that reported sasquatch prints, that the experts wish to have examined
by such technology, will be virtually non-existent.


Do you think maybe practicing plaster casting of foot prints today, is kind of like practicing
with a slide rule about 20 years ago ?

Pretty much.

Bingo :icon14: - and I would Start Here

And why should she use volcanic ash when the soil on Onion Mountain wasn't volcanic ash?

What is your training again?

Chilcutt found a longitudinal ridge flow on the Elkins Creek Cast. He said this ridge flow is also consistent with the 1967 Blue Creek Mountain Road cast and the 1984 Walla Walla, Table Spring cast.

How similar are those ridges to OM?

These were all in mud, weren't they? No wicking effect there.

Come to think of it, are there any casts that were made in volcanic ash?

I thought I made it clear when I told Woodshadow, I already have done exactly that. But Im sure you have heard this song and dance before "If our instructions are followed correctly - you wont have these types of problems with your finished product" As far as that person was concerned - it was all human error.



I think you will be surprised at the results of my random testing.



I am enjoying this. If the answers are out there - the manufacturer isnt going to give up this information, as it may show a flaw with their product they can not do anything about. I can tell you, the person I spoke to was none to happy when I said "I am trying to figure out how these casting artifacts happened, and Im wondering if it has something to do with hydrocal itself"..... I was told I was doing something wrong, and if I followed the instructions on the package, I wouldnt have these artifacts.

You look at this as "taking the long way" - I look at it much differently. Sometimes we can not get all the answers from someone else - you have to dig up those answers yourself (thats becoming the story of my life). I dont mind doing this. I am very comfortable looking for information - asking questions and even if I know nothing about the subject. But, your right. I am a great track caster now. I have roughly 25 casts in my collection (of my foot - lmao).. Maybe someday I can add a Track I have found myself.

I do find it funny that you do not put DDA in the catagory of someone with extra knowledge about Hydrocal and other casting agents. DDA works with Hydrocal daily, and has for a number of years. Yet - his word hasnt really ment a whole lot to this topic. I dont understand that at all.

I still havent seen anyone step up and say they have had issues with these casting artifacts that tube has created. I will leave this question open - but I dont think I will hear from many people, because I dont think its something that can happen in every soil out there - as I have proven (*Disclaimer: My work is not finished yet with the Onion Mountain Soil, so this is subject to change*) (and tube validated by his work).

*edited to add* One question - Wildman, are you not the least bit curious why the "Artifacts" start and then abruptly stop? Look at Tubes work, then look at a copy of the Onion Mountain Cast. Tube has shown that these artifacts are indeed possible, BUT there is a big difference between Tubes work and what is seen on the Onion Mountain Cast -- tubes "artifacts" keep going, regardless of obstructions. That is not the case with the Onion Mountain Cast - they start then they stop. Dont you find that a bit curious? This does prove my point I made a very long time ago - as a rule if there is an artifact (of any kind) caused by human error in casting - it will continue throughout the work, in areas of the same consistancy..

Sorry Melissa - I didn't realise you had gone through the possible causes with the manufacturer from your reply.
Just to clarify - and I don't mean to put you on the spot (although you are :new_lmaosmiley: ). You contacted a major manfacturer such as U.S. Gypsum Company* (I may be wrong as I am from overseas*) or the manufacturer of your product with this specific "problem" & were actually told "human error" with no other suggestions as to what was happening or how not to achieve these artifacts?

Thats ok Woodshadow - I understand that sometimes I do not convey what Im trying to :laugh: Its all good.

I was told it was something I was doing wrong. I was not reading the instructions or I wasnt measuring properly. I was told to pay close attention to the mix ratios - and thats when my first suspicion was confirmed that water temperature does make a difference (although I did have no doubt DDA was correct about this). The person I spoke with almost seemed insulted I would think it was their product causing this issue. I felt kinda bad for asking the question..

No worries, I took the heat and didnt say "Well, it wasnt my work" :laugh: I emailed this person a picture as reference. So, it wasnt just what I said. It was a cropped photo - and no, this person did not know this had anything to do with Bigfoot research - :laugh:

I also spoke with a manufacturer of Plaster of Paris - who told me if I mix per their instructions - I wont see anything like these "artifacts". When I told them I was having difficulty creating these "artifacts" - and is there a way to make them happen, I was told, Well, I guess its possible, but you would really have to do some manipulation to make it happen - and they have never seen this before, so they couldnt tell me even where to begin.

This person was spot on!!!

Thanks Melissa.
I was thinking about tackling the question over here in the UK and was wondering how to ahem, address the issue of what the casts were supposed to represent.

It's quite surprising (almost frightening even - to me anyhow) that a manufacturer can't help on a technical issue. But I'm pleased to see that was your first port of call. Perhaps the search needs to be widened?

Yes, but I wonder how many of these manufacturers have mixed their product in situ, pouring it into an impression in the ground? There are many variables to be considered here. Keep trudging on, in the field is where you'll find your answers.

Not really. Differing conditions will create differing artifacts, I'm sure. I jut hope that people will start documenting possible dermals in the actual tracks before casting so we don't have to question what are casting artifacts and what aren't.

I would suggest for your own sake that you start getting all this "I was told" in writing, as this claim is as invalid as you previous claim that it is "illegal to ship volcanic ash".

Indeed, your "difficulty creating these artifacts" is a direct result of your failure to test a substrate that supports them.

All of your bizarre distortions of fact act as innuendo to suggest that there is something deeply wrong with my methodology, where in fact the failure to duplicate my results lies squarely with you.

How do you account for the casting artifacts that Jeff Meldrum got in the 1999 Erickson cast?

Thank you Vols - I appreciate your positive attitude toward this.



I can only speak to what I was told, and I dont think people who have nothing to do with this research would be thrilled about seeing their names on this or any other website without their express consent. What makes you think I dont know who they are - and do not have regular contact with them? You assume you know so much..



Or, they are just not possible in the current sample I have taken - and for you to not acknowlede that possibility and continue to harp on issues that have nothing to do with my current work is really quite telling.



My bizarre distortions of fact? You cant even tell us how you created these artifacts - yet you claim you have all the answers. Your really amazing, I think before you demand anything of anyone - you should start by releasing the answers to questions you have been asked for a very long time (that is if you really have them) I suggest you finish your work - and stop trying to derail mine, unless your nervous I might discover something?

Your awfully defensive for someone who says they are just after the truth - and Im not sure why that is Tube. I have never attacked you this way, you could at least give me the opportunity to finish my work and have it all on the table before you attempt your "smear campaign". Attack all you want, I will simply stop responding to you - as you are adding nothing of value to the current conversation but insults, and that helps no one understand anything.

Kinda sad if you ask me.

I haven't seen where Matt has claimed to have all the answers, nor have I seen where he has demanded anything from anyone. I also haven't noticed him "attacking" anyone, nor have I noticed an overt level of defensiveness coming from him. I also haven't seen him engaging in any kind of "smear campaign" against anyone.

I'm just not seeing anything out of Matt that would justify anyone getting their hackles up over. JMHO.

Why should she use ' splash ' casting ?


Why should she use soil with a high organic content ?

Ummm, because part of her experiment is trying to duplicate Matt's artifact finding and she knew that he was using volcanic ash? Sounds like Melissa would have used the ash in at least some of her experiments had she found someone willing to ship some to her.

I completely agree P.L. Pinkham. Thats an important part of this. I just wonder how many do right now?

Your kinda right... Ok, lets see if I can explain this.

Matt did show these are possibly casting artifacts.

Matt set out to prove his theory - using Volcanic Ash and a few other soils. But for the most part his work has been in Volcanic Ash.

This is my issue.. I asked Matt if he had done this testing with the soil from Onion Mountain - he told me no, he had not and he had no intention of doing so, as he felt his work was good enough to dispell the idea that the alleged dermals on the Onion Mountain cast are infact just artifacts.

Its my contention - you should go directly to the source. Onion Mountain does not have any Volcanic ash - and It didnt have it back a year before this track was casted - so why is he using Volcanic Ash to prove or disprove artifacts for Onion Mountain? No one seems interested in that question. Just because you can make something happen using one substrate - that doesnt mean its going to happen with all substrates.

LAL does bring up a good point - How many tracks have been casted in Volcanic Ash?

Very few, I'm sure. That's one of the reasons we have that "standards" thread going on over at BFD.

I think it is great that you are doing the tests you are doing, and sharing the results. Regardless of what comes from it, it is at least being documented and presented. IMO, that's the most important thing.

Thank you. Standards are important, and I agree with the work many are doing on that issue. Whether my testing helps or not - the information will be out there for anyone who wants it.

There was a print cast after the eruption on Mt. St. Helens. I would assume that one would have been in volcanic ash.

Anyone know more about it?

And with that, I think it's time to go.

I'm taking a website building class, perhaps in the future I can improve my website on the issue found here: http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm Hopefully the webpage address will remain the same, but if not you can probably find it by googling "Dermal Ridges and Casting Artifacts" or my homepage title "Orgone Research".

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/

I see the light that Anton saw.

Now....back to it...and remember...Be Excellent to One Another!!

I must be honest and say I have never even heard about this track.. Interesting.

Woodshadow - I would like to thank you for that wonderful link. I received excellent information this afternoon from someone who was not offended (like the others I told you about).

That was absolutely worth the phone call - and I appreciate you pointing me in that direction

In bold are the key words here.

We don't know or have any way of knowing what the consistency was in the original Onion Mountain print.

Artifacts can suddenly stop, if what caused them to show up in the first place, changes.

It would be easier for Tube's artifacts to keep going, in a very controlled area while testing, IMO.

You could be right scotto. I think much about this is open to many ideas, or opinions. Its just nice to have the discussion.

Maybe I shouldnt have used the word "consistancy" - I ment thickness.. Thats just always been my experience.

well to be honest LOL in recipes doesn't it mean the same thing? Consistency of batter, consistency of plaster mix?

Plaster pancakes, anyone? :laugh:

I'm a lousy cook.

I actually was referring to the substrate, not the plaster. Like if one part of the ground was sandy/dusty, and it met a harder or moister area inside the print itself.

Thank you, I'm glad it helped - Who's this Woodshadow bloke by the way ? Stupid name :biggrin: .

Ohh - Well, I was talking about the mix consistancy of the plaster of paris.

Ohh the name changes are killin me :laugh: sorry about that..

I jest :wink: - I only changed it yesterday!

I like Woodshadow better.

Why do I keep thinking posters looks like their avatars?

Oh heck :wink: :laugh: !
I was a bit worried at that remark until I recalled some of the other avatars in use.

Oh you sneaky little devil you -- Im gonna have to keep my eyes on you :laugh:

That would be interesting....



*whistling*
(changing his avatar to a pic of Brad Pitt)

Imagine my surprise when I met Judaculla at Twin Dragons for the Pokeabout last summer. I thought he was going to seat me.

Me too, I thought that was cool.





*whistling*

(changing my avatar to a pic of Jim Ignatowski)

:biggrin:

I really look like trees.

Bob Walls (Anthropologist) was visiting the devestation zone around Mt. Saint Helens after the blast and found a large track in volcanic dust. He did not cast it as far as I know. He felt the track was real and not that of a human or other known animal from the area. Bob and I had partnered up for quite a while after the UBC conference of '78. He never mentioned to me any other details than that and the size. He had a hand drawing to show a picture he took of it better.

My understanding is that it is against the law to sell volcanic ash, at least from Mt. Saint Helens. Of course some stores can make things out of the ash and sell that (dishes and cups) and I think I have even seen snow globes containing ash.

Thanks. I disremembered an earlier post. Do you know of any casts that were taken in volcanic ash?