Be interesting to see that.

Edited to fix quote

I will take pictures and post them tonight. I actually noticed what was happening while I was doing it. So, I stopped and simply tried to pour in by hand (large handfuls) - so now not only do I have little, what looks like round "lumps" - in the cast but I also can count how many hand pours it took to finish the cast..

I actually found this very interesting, regardless of these issues, I still was able to cast the dermals of my foot in the heel.

As promised - here are those pictures John I did the best I could to show what Im talking about.

Well that's not what I was expecting to see (not sure what I was but not that!). Never seen those sort of artifacts before.

Looks almost like the start of the "flow ridges/stalls" in Tube's poured in experiments - but as a result of being dropped in rather than poured. I would imagine the mix was a bit too thick to spash - it certainly hasn't driven out entrapped air - as there would have been air contained in the ridges surrounding the "bubble".

I don't suppose there is a bubble of air behind them by any chance - could you break one open if pushed with a screwdriver blade for example?

All I can suggest is a thinner mix for the splash coat - never had temperature problems myself but I'm guessing my in geographical location the temperature may be a bit more forgiving.

Edited to add - I'm not an expert by any stretch, just done enough casting of very detailed objects that worked, to at least offer an opinion :biggrin: !

Hi John. Yeah I was surprised too the first time I seen this (this wasnt the first time) This is not because of air, that I am sure of. As the little drops hit the substrate - they set up, then as I poured over them - they kept their shape and the poured plaster simply went over top. Kinda interesting isnt it.

This is a good example of why you shouldnt use water that is hotter than your current air temperature. I will go into detail very soon, but suffice it to say - the mix of this pour was the recommended mix by the Manufacturer, 2 cups Plaster of Paris to 1 cup water. But - I added in the Heat element. I heated the water to 100 degrees. The water causes the casting cement to "set up" much faster than you would expect. Thus when you splash or pour the cast - it does not flow as freely, and you will get these "lumps" that set up just about as fast as they hit the substrate - or if you pour, you will get these "flow ridges/stalls" because the plaster sets up so fast it will not flow or spread out evenly. I did see this happen not only with this substrate but also with the Tricalcium Phosphate I used in my first set of tests. I thought then it was just because of the Tricalcium Phosphate being so light and powdery (kinda like splashing water on flour?).. I couldnt explain it then - so I just kept working on the question until I was fairly certain what caused it. Then, I seen it happen with this substrate as well. I then had to go back over all my notes to find the common variable in the tests where this happened ----- heat. It was when I introduced the heated water, thus the cast you are seeing right now. It shows these "lumps" as well as the "flow ridges/stalls".

Temperature plays a very important role in this. That means Temperature of your water, air and substrate.

Heck John - Im no expert either. I just enjoy a good mystery and good conversation. I do think understanding these things is very important however - if researchers do not want their potential dermals they cast to be called "artifacts". We really need to understand what causes these things - and hopefully how to avoid them.

:icon_idea: As soon as you said that I realise I have seen this effect! From memory, whatever you are casting is "wicking" water out of the first drops of cement that hit, so they end up at seperate density to the rest of the batch. Going out on a limb, you are either going to have to seal the subject or even intruduce some water into it (spray mist?). Or perhaps a wetter mix.

I dont have this problem now - as I know what causes it. And I think I can help others avoid it as well. Its about a whole lot more than just the amount of water, as its not the amount of water that creates the issue. If the water I used had been air temperature - this never would have happened. The heated water causes the casting agent to "set up" faster than usual.

If your in the field - and your using water hotter than air temperature, you had better move fast, or adjust your casting agent amount, because if you dont, you too will see these issues. But - these artifacts did not stop the casting agent from picking up the dermals of my foot in this track. So, in my opinion it is possible to seperate artifacts from what your actually trying to cast (dermals and flexion creases).

Not easy in the field but I would imagine the colder the better. The setting process is a chemical reaction after all & heat tends to speed up reaction time. If water monitoring temperature is "curing"(sorry :biggrin: ) the circular artifact problem then fine, but I'm certain that I've seen a similar reaction with water being drawn out of the casting plaster - it may be another variable to take into account if it mysteriously crops up again.

Edit - quote thingies

Maybe Im not understanding you - which one of the artifacts are you talking about? Or both? I have no doubt others have seen both of these issues in their own casts. Most probably didnt even think about it.

How either of these issues happened is not a mystery to me. I can make this happen - as you see in this specific cast. I created these on purpose, to discuss this very issue. I changed nothing about the casting agent mix or water amount - all I did was make the water 100 degrees. You should see what happens when the water is hotter than 100 ... Highest I went to was 105. Water heated to 100 degrees isnt really very hot when you think about it, you can get that from your tap. So, I took it just a bit higher - WOW. What a difference 5 degrees make.

As predicted by the Gyspsum Expert I talked to.

It was the circular artifacts. When you mentioned that as soon as you mentioned the "drops" - " As the little drops hit the substrate - they set up," - I remembered seeing a similar thing occur. I seemed to be caused by water being drawn from the casting plaster by the object being cast. If yours are occuring because of temperature, then there seem to be two similar effects with different causes.
Edit: You seem to be trying to find controlled ways of introducing artifacts - I suppose that is one way of trying to avoid them in future. Not much more I could comment on there - I was always deserate to avoid those sort of issues :laugh: and not repeat them!

As a non-caster, and definatly a non-expert, I am finding the discussion between John and Melissa very interesting. The way both of you go about it is interesting. I see it like trying to enter a house. John is trying to enter the front door by maticulously eliminating artifacts from the start. Melissa is going thru the back door by delibertly creating artifacts and then eliminating then to get true result. Different ways to get into the house. But a way that you will both meet in the middle of the house. Good work by both.

I did this cast only to show whether or not my suspicions were correct. Its the only way to know for sure. How can anyone know for sure what causes something - unless we try out our hypothesis? The issue I set out to work on with this cast - happened in a controlled situation, and I didnt know why. I had no choice but to go back over things again to try and discover why this happened. Im doing no one any good if I cant answer why such things are happening in my own work.. :laugh:

I have no doubt things can happen for more than one reason. My work is exactly about why these things are happening - and If I can I will answer those questions anyway I can.

This specific test goes to the heart of the conversation about heat.

Thank you Billkirby - I like good though provoking discussions. Between you and John, Im really on my toes.. Thanks guys !!!

billkirbywofb wrote:




Anyone tried the chimney? (I have no idea what that means)

Sorry Yeti, the chimney is only avalable during the Christmas Season. :biggrin:

But any route is worthwhile trying.

ooooooOOOOOoooo Santa :biggrin:

Gonna have a hell of a time getting down my chimney - I dont have one....

The first quote above suggests a source of a soil sample similar to that on Bluff Creek Road--off-road motorcycle trails in the Cascades. Collecting dust from them wouldn't be illegal. (There's even one near Index NW of Seattle--I camped nearby one night.)

After researching issues presented here for the last couple of months I've made some significant finds that will be presented in 3 different parts.

For now I will address accusations against Tube about the use and legality of volcanic ash.

After reading here that volcanic ash is illegal to ship and places don't carry it, I placed a phone call to Marjon ceramics here in Phoenix. When I asked them if they carried volcanic ash and if it was illegal to ship, they replied with laughter. No, it's not illegal, and they referred to it as pumice, but told me it was the same thing. Now I'm not going to get into chemical arguments about how similar or different ash straight from a volcano is from pumice, what's important here is that pottery stores will refer to them as the same. It's not plutonium or some dangerous chemical, it's pumice, hence their laughter. In fact, I just bought a 50 lb. bag from them. But not wanting to rely on hearsay and actually get some sort of document, I did some more research.

So I looked online and found that the statement that Melissa could not get volcanic ash in Texas is also false, as this website for Ceramic Store, Inc., located in Houston, Texas advertises they carry it:
http://store.ceramicstoreinc.com/ulvevoash.html

Now as for the accusation that Tube got ash from Mt. St. Helens, which there is absolutely no reason to accuse him for, I found the Mt. St. Helens website itself advertises it and will ship it to you:
http://www.mountsthelens.com/

Though this is a little weird, why would Tube be accused of getting ash from Mt. St. Helens? Anybody who researched the area would find that it'd be a 3 hour drive for him to go to Helens to get ash straight off the ground on Helens, why bother when he could make a 15 minute trip to his local pottery store and buy it? Did Tube ever say he had ash from Mt. St. Helens? No. Where did this accusation come from? Volcanic ash is supplied at pottery stores, he stated he got the ash from a pottery store, so the only reason left was Melissa was just out to discredit him, and did so by lying or distorting the truth. Isn't there a rule in the posting guidelines against this?

Ok, some emphasis has been placed on Tube's use of the term "Virgin volcanic ash". Now maybe in a zealous fever Melissa jumped to the conclusion that meant it was straight from a volcano. However, you'd think a paralegal or paralegal's assistant would have the sense to ask the person involved what they meant by "Virgin Volcanic Ash". I did, and here's the exchange:





As I mentioned before, and has been conveniently ignored, I was raised in Washington. Anyways, I went to visit friends and family over the holidays and visited Tube, and saw the volcanic ash he used was from a pottery store.

So there you have it, not only was Tube accused of something that was totally baseless, Melissa made statements that were false both in her accusations and her excuses for not replicating the methods Tube used. Again, isn't there a rule in the posting guidelines against this?

Dermal Ridges;

I'm totally brand new here, and still looking around, but I have a question;

According to Chikutt (or however you spell it) the dermal ridges on the feet of his "unknown" specemin casts he believes are made by a previously unknown North American primate, (our BF), I'm having trouble with what naturally selective advantage there would be for a large, heavy barefoot hominid who often perambulates through muddy or wet areas to have big dermal ridges that run longitudinally along the bottom of the foot. Dermal ridges are supposed to INCREASE grip. Seems to me that large longitudinal ridges would be counterproductive to providing better grip, and would lend to slippage. Does anybody know if that question has been asked or addressed? Just wondering....

Since when are questions accusations?

The source has been straightened out on another board. I'm certain some of the things he's said to her are against the guidelines. If they're not, they should be.

Dermal ridges, or friction skin, is an arboreal adaptation specific to primates. There's such a thing as "evolutionary baggage", traits that no longer serve much of a function, but persist merely because they do no harm and don't get selected out.

If longitudinal ridges have to be "for" something in a heavy, terrestrial biped, I can see prevention of side-slippage as an advantage in wet, mountainous, slippery terrain.

This is not asking questions, these are accusations:





And this is an outright accusation:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=230...;postcount=1112


No the source was answered long ago, when Tube first started his experiments he was fully honest about getting the volcanic ash from Seattle Pottery. She keeps ranting through this thread that he wouldn't answer her questions but he did each time. Why don't you use the quote feature to show what Tube EVER said to Melissa here at BFF that would violate the posting guidelines?

Good q?. But it is unknown how a BF uses his feet to navigate unlevel terrain. Does s/he lateral step? I know I do that often when I hike steep terrain up or down. Does BF aLternate his/her stepping style to advantage longitude dermal ridges? Clearly Bfs are bipedal - but not exactly like humans or necessarily for the same advantage. Unfortunately (assuming Chillcut is right on), this seems like an unknowable until a body is on the table and/or field workers can observe a BF doing its thing in its own realm.

But a very good question that should be explored (probably ad infinitum) by the forum flies....

Who accused Tube of getting ash from Mt. Saint Helens? I didn't .. He did however make the comment he had in his possession "Virgin Volcanic ash", so he may have caused that himself - as you noted by posting the exchange between both yourself and Tube, why your blaming me for tube not being clear is beyond me. I think your having a huge temper tantrum for no good reason whatsoever - and you both need to get over it. I have posted the exact law which speaks to removing ash from Mt. Saint Helens - if you don't like that, then work the change the law. I am not sure what to tell you. Typing over and over that I am wrong wont change that. If I can not get ash from a store (who would have the legal ability to ship to me as I stated BEFORE) my only other option is to go to an area with an active Volcano - and that option is out now that Gifford Pinchot National Forest told me what would in fact happen if I were caught. Whine, cry and complain all you like - I can not change the law for you or tube.

I have said a NUMBER of times, if I can find Volcanic Ash in a store I will be more than happy to buy it and use it in my work, but regardless Volcanic Ash will not speak to any tracks found on Onion Mountain, as there is NO Volcanic Ash on Onion mountain - there was none indicated in Soil Samples the year prior to the cast or now (unless you have heard of an eruption no one else knows about).

I and others on this very board called Seattle Supply Company, they did not have Volcanic Ash in stock, and did not know when they would. When I called them last year - they did not have it then either. I also think you and tube need to learn how to read and comprehend - or at the minimum slow down, neither one of you are pausing long enough to even consider what I am saying. I find it telling that both tube and you would prefer to attack me and not challenge my work - that I find very interesting. Attack the Messenger - not the message??

I stand by everything I have said to date. If you and tube come up with new information in regards to casting I am all ears and would welcome anything you or tube have to say.. I am however done with this petty childish crap, speak to the casting issues.

You and Tube can go right ahead and twist my words all you like, I really don't care. Fact is, you can not change the fact that I have not been able to produce "crowley lines", and all the mud you throw in my direction wont change that.

P.S. - Pumace and Volcanic Ash are two different things (or call Seattle Supply and they will tell you what they told me last year when many called them about the Volcanic Ash (Pumice) they were selling on their website) check your facts Wolftrax and then get Tube up to speed. LMAO. Oh, and Seattle Supply Company did tell me their Ash does come from Mt. Saint Helens (when they have it in stock), so I feel I am correct in saying he is using Mt. Saint Helens Ash, regardless of how he got it. Tube made how he came about getting it an issue, not me or anyone else when he typed the words "Virgin" - thats his issue not mine.

I look forward to what you have discovered in relation to casting.

Mel, what casting medium are you experimenting with now? Forgive the question if you've already supplied this information.

This casting stuff seems a bit like a recipe. Different cooks (casters) have different ingredients, different temps, and methodologies and get differing results. I appreciate the experimentation because it's going to take that to know what "recipe" will work best to obtain the best end results.

Kudos to you folks spending the time and money to perfect the "recipe."

Hi AR I am just finishing up my work using Plaster of Paris. I am getting ready to make a move to a new place (need more room - the casts are filling up my place now, lmao) when I get all settled in there, I will start work using Hydrocal.

I have personally found the closer you stay to the manufacturers specifications, the better off you are. If your air temp and water temp are roughly the same (staying within a few degrees) there should be little if any changes noted in the end product. When you start introducing "extremes" one way or the other, thats when problems start.

There was a trackway that showed prints at a 45° angle, apparently where the animal paused and looked behind. There are several cases of toe prints being dug into banks as the animal went straight up.

Much can be inferred from sign.

I was thinking of gripping on rocks (the PNW is full of them); the midtarsal bend would be useful for that too.

On 4 November 06, the same week at least two people from this board plus you called Seattle Pottery Supply and claimed to have been told they did not have any in stock, Tube and I drove to Seattle Pottery Supply and purchased one 5-pound bag from them. They had a total of approximately 20 bags sitting on the bottom shelf for purchase. At that time, SBT (initials on the receipt) said the volcanic ash we were purchasing was not from Mount St. Helens, as ash from that locale was available to them sporadically. She stated the ash we were purchasing was most likely from Hawaii but they get it from a variety of locales throughout the year.

Because you are so wrong about this most minute and simplistic point and appear to be going to your grave believing it, it calls into question absolutely everything else you claim: paraphrased conversations from the dozens of experts you have contacted on a variety of subjects, your basic comprehension to read and/or listen, your ability to follow instructions, your design of experimentation and interpretation of results, your understanding of federal statutes and the profuse underlying documentation that allows, for example, contractors to purchase various types of "debris" as part of their contracts, your ability to click one of numerous links provided here and order volcanic ash, your ability to converse in a pleasant manner, as the entire staff at Seattle Pottery Supply came out of the woodwork to express how rude you were and how stupid one of the other callers was (who thought Mount St. Helens was somewhere in South America), and, in the end, your integrity. In short--and why this is so significant to the entire dermals discussion--if you can't figure out how to purchase volcanic ash and thus paint yourself into a very filthy corner in trying to defend that inability, how the heck can you figure out anything and be trusted on anything else you claim, respectively.

You are indisputably 100% correct on one thing: Your work "isn't about Tube's work"--it is all about you. And contrary to your delusion that your are upsetting folks, in fact it's become an entertaining comedy among a whole host of people around these forums when prime time doesn't have much to offer and without any new compelling Sasquatch news.

So, now its just not me who is lieing - its all the others who were told the samething. How pathetic.

You could care less about the finding the truth about any of this. You simply want to start a fight because I have different results than you. Too bad, get over it, my work will not stop because you seem to think bashing me is more important than the work.

Have fun



Funny hearing that from you - LOL

Amazing, you're in complete denial only 48 hours after stating this:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=230...;postcount=1112

Oh and this one too, are you actually threatening Tube with some sort of legal action?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=230...;postcount=1115
Have you ever heard of libel, slander, and defamation of character?
Not to mention the posts already quoted:



So basically the comment that you did not accuse Tube of taking ash from Mt. St. Helens is a lie.





Oh, so you did accuse him but it's his fault. No, it is your fault. You did not bother asking him what he meant by virgin volcanic ash, but instead jumped to the conclusion and accused him of taking ash from Mt. St. Helens, despite the fact that from the very beginning Tube stated he got volcanic ash from Seattle Pottery.



Oh, so now it's my fault.



Oh, so now it's the law's fault. This law is not at all relevant to Tube and his experiments because there has never been any reason to beieve Tube got the ash from Mt. St. Helens. You made it all up.



Oh, so now it's the stores fault. For someone who demands people read you seem to have blocked out the sites I linked that clearly sell Volcanic ash, and list it as both volcanic ash and pumice. In fact, this one is in Houston, Texas, right in your area:
http://store.ceramicstoreinc.com/ulvevoash.html
Go to the main page and it shows their address:
http://store.ceramicstoreinc.com/

And in case you decide to ignore it here's a screen shot showing quite clearly they list it as Volcanic ash-pumice.

And let's not forget the Mt. St. Helens website that also sells and ships Mt. St. Helens volcanic ash:
http://www.mountsthelens.com/
so not being able to get volcanic ash is another lie.



This is exactly what you have been doing, attacking the messenger. The problem, Melissa, is that when you lie to accuse others it is very easy for people to bust you on that lie. When you first started posting about this whole illegal volcanic ash baloney I did a search and found this info in less than 15 minutes.

Let's talk about those who called Seattle Pottery and the response they relayed:


Now, read carefully what Volsquatch is saying. He asked if they had Mt. St. Helens ash, to which they replied not at that time, but they did have pumice. You see, as shown on the website of the pottery store in your area that will supply you with volcanic ash, they refer to volcanic ash and pumice as the same thing. Same with the pottery supply in my area.

Now look at Tube's receipt, notice the date of Vol's phone call an Tube's receipt:

As we can see they are on the same exact day. They have pumice, the lady told Vol, and sold it to Tube as volcanic ash.



You see, it doesn't matter the differences between pumice and volcanic ash, because the people who supply this stuff refer to it as the same thing, it's what Tube is using, it's what you would use, but for some reason just can't bring yourself to do.


You are done with this petty childish crap? Good! You are the one who has been creating it! It's just that now it's coming back at you to deal with.


No, only replicating Tube's methods would change that, but you consistently refuse to do that.

Glad to see the debate on JREF is being read. That should save me having to do a search there for insulting posts that violate Netiquette and the golden rule of posting if not the proscriptions that can get a person suspended. Anyone who's followed these debates should know where they are here on BFF.

I would think real researchers would say things like, "Oh, you're not getting the same results? Let's try to find out why that is." Or , "I'm not getting those results in OM soil either. Let's look at that."

Instead we have assaults on logic and ability to follow directions and an e-mail consultation with a sceptical board member instead of a neutral soil scientist. It's become obvious tube is no "Sasquatch agnostic". He seems out to "prove" an agenda and seems to have had no problem convincing the already convinced.

I've noticed couple of BFFers have gone to JREF where they seem to think they can preach to the choir without fear of contradiction. They do not like it when one of us "trolls" pops in to say, "Wait a minute!" and respond with some really clever (for ten-year -olds) retorts and pictures I'd be embarrassed to post, instead of engaging in honest debate. Several top posters have left that board saying it's a waste of time. (I've been crowned the Queen of the Ad Homs over there, BTW. I thought that was quite an honor on a board where there are so many.)

Would "a whole host of people around these forums" be the same ones who've noticed I "hero worship", by any chance? Seems like an appeal to anonymous authority to me, since these people never seem to get named, or come out of the woodwork themselves. Or did they? I seem to remember some suspensions.

Speaking of woodwork, if the entire staff anywhere I've worked talked that way about customers to customers, they'd have been disciplined or fired. It is not good business to denigrate people who pay the bills, and I'm finding that whole story suspect. Just how did they know who it was who was being "rude", Evil (may I call you that?)

Jeff Meldrum said this on another board (reposted with permission):

"I just wanted to add a significant qualifier that Scott and others seem to
repeatedly understate or altogether neglect. Matt's findings address a
specific set of circumstances -- i.e. casting with relatively thick cement
in extremely fine dry wicking material at very warm temperatures. These conditions were indeed present at the Blue Creek/ Onion Mtn track ways. They were certainly not present at the Skookum heel imprint, the Walla Walla River tracks, the Elkins Creek track, GA cast, the Hyampom tracks, the northern Idaho tracks, or any of the Elk Wallow and associated tracks (Blue Mtns, WA). Matt has done a great job exploring the artifacts that may accompany casting under specific conditions, and more tests are called for. But let's be accurate in the characterization of the state of affairs regarding the presence and interpretation of dermals in footprints generally.


My best,
Jeff Meldrum, Pocatello, ID"

Tube himself has said much the same thing, but since then he's extrapoloated to all the prints at Bluff Creek being faked and has recently implied the same about Gray's Harbor. He seems to have the idea that in forty years only he has been experimentally checking for possible fakery. I believe John Green has addressed that one many times, so I'll suggest detractors do their homework and leave it at that.

I've seen Melissa take quite bit of abuse on this and other boards, yet she responds like a lady, clarifying points and defending her work instead of engaging in second grade schoolyard tactics.

She has my ongoing respect for her hard work, her excellent blog, her character and her continuing quest for truth. We need more like her.

Way to go, girl. :appl:

No, I don't know where they are. Just like Melissa, if you are going to accuse Tube you need to back it up with something, prove it.



We know why she doesn't get the same results, she won't follow his methods and lies about why, then lies to accuse him.



You mean Melissa assaulted Matt's credibility by making up some outlandish story about him going to Mt. St. Helens and breaking the law, all because Tube's experiments have convinced him that dermals are artifacts, and you must be OK with that. You are OK with that because he has ventured over to the "Dark side" the skeptical side. You believe you are in a constant war with that skeptical side, and all is fair in love and war.



Yes, it's sad, when you don't have anything to prove your case you try to laugh at their career history or dig up a picture of them to laugh at. What's even sadder is the people you do that to have accomplished 3 times as much in life than you have, look 3 times better, and are at least half your age.



No idea what you are talking about here, but lying about somebody to discredit them would be considered evil.



OH NO! How dare he?! How could he add up all the details of the tracks, experiment with casting and get the same results, and make a conclusion that you don't agree with?! Oh, the humanity!!! What are we to do?! Let's make up a story about him and discredit him.



I've repeatedly seen her follow the same pattern. Flatter the prominent researchers in the field to gain their support, debate with people who are skeptical of evidence by using information that is anonymous from anonymous sources so it can't be cross examined (and is therefore useless), when questioned on any of the details or disagreed with or asked for the sources she insults her opponent and the opponent's reading comprehension and intelligence, attacking their credibility and accusing them of bias. When the opponent responds as anybody would she starts playing the victim and uses her flattery of the prominent researchers to create a larger division between her opponent and the researcher, until the whole thing breaks down.

Tube's standing with the prominent researchers is strong, so she instead she chose to make up an outlandish story about him.

Wow, this thing is getting worse by the minute. Could we all cool down and discuss the research instead of the character of those doing it? I think we all need to take a deep breath and start over if that's even possible after all that's been said.

I didn't see where Melissa accused Tube flat out that he had stolen Mt. St. Helen ash. I did see where she questioned where he got the "virgin" volcanic ash from but a flat out accusation, I didn't see. I didn't know what Tube meant when he used the term "virgin volcanic ash" either until it was explained that he meant he had not recycled the ash. That may be splitting hairs. I have friends on both sides of this issue and hate to see them butting heads right now when the important thing is the research, not the characters. Melissa has her results and Tube has his, and cooler heads will prevail, I hope.

If this thread doesn't get back on track it will be closed.

No further warnings.

Quoted to make sure this gem doesn't go unnoticed.

Repeating a result under a certain set of circumstances is one thing, but it must be repeated across a much broader range of circumstances in order to cover all instances of dermal ridge evidence.

I agree with you ARsquatch, I don't see any accusations either, nor did I see where Melissa threatened any legal action. Not to mention that I had no idea that ash and pumice were considered the same thing (my geology book doesn't say that, so I'm completely lost).

I respect tube, wolftrax, and Melissa and would really prefer that we get back on track (pun intended). I really appreciate the comment by Dr. Meldrum because it finally frames the real issue for me. Maybe we should move on from Onion Mountain and experiment with the conditions found in the other examples of dermal ridges?

Im glad you brought this up Hairyman. I would like to do the same experiments on soil from other areas, especially the areas where these other casts were found that may have evidence of dermal ridges or artifacts. If anyone who lives in these areas is willing to collect 5 pounds of this soil (unsifted) I am willing to pay for shipping expenses as well as any other expense you may incur. I am especially interested in soil from the Elkins Creek area. Please send me an email at melissah326@sbcglobal.net - we can work out the details.

Since Lu seems to think it is important to comment on the discussions at other boards,
I feel it is relevant to bring up another interesting question that a Member at JREF has brought
up with regard to dermal evidence and Bigfoot prints..


The member has emailed Dr. Meldrum, and posted the email here:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=73811


The heart of the question being asked Dr. Meldrum is this:

QUOTE

Can anyone anywhere clearly demonstrate in regards to alleged dermatoglyphic sasquatch print casts at least two separate casts from a successive track way displaying matching (not similar) dermal features ( ridge flow patterns of friction skin, scarring, flexion creases, etc. ) ?

You can see for yourself ( if you care to ) that the rest of the email is very polite and professional ..

I would suggest that the implications of this question are at the heart of the ' dermal ' question ..

If they are dermals, there should be a perfect match of dermal patterns, between at least two prints
in a track way ..


I can't think of any good reason why Dr. Meldrum wouldn't address this question.. Can you ?

I think it is a valid question, but I don't think it can be answered right now. We only have a handful of examples of dermals and I'm doubting there are two examples from the same trackway (but don't quote me, Meldrum would know, not me). Why do I think that? Unfortunately, most commonly only the single best track is cast...not an entire trackway or even successive tracks. To answer the question, we are going to need to change our methods. If there are multiple tracks, some minimum percentage of the total tracks need to be casted, and probably only those in succession.

In fact, Dr. Meldrum talks about finding another cast from the trackway in his collection with similar features, only fainter, evidently because of dust settling from passing vehicles.

I've mentioned this several times, on both boards, with the page number.

Greg seems to have completely neglected to mention I'm the one who suggested the poster e-mail Dr. Meldrum about this. He's more apt to get a reply since I've bothered Jeff enough for one semester with my questions.

I'm hoping he'll send clear pictures. There isn't picture of the second cast (CA-19, I believe) in the book.

Tube has posted pictures of this cast, if it's the same one, but not of the critical ball area, which was what Jimmy Chilcutt was discussing on WCS 2003. That cast is CA-20, apparently.

In the case of the Elkins Creek cast there was only one, so there are no others to compare it to.

Probably the best series wold be Titmus' succession of ten at Bluff Creek, but there were no dermal ridges on any of those, were there?

What about Wrinkle Foot left and right? Too bad they're not the same foot.

Melissa:




Also the soil is going to be a bugger since the creek has flooded numerous times since then, the land the cast was made on is no longer accessable, and the creek flows can tend to change from flood to flood and year to year. Where it was during the time of the cast, it could have moved several yards either way. That can change soil makeup along these creeks....sometimes in dramatic ways.

Im batting zero when it comes to the Elkins Creek cast.. Thats not good news at all. I guess I need to find out what changing river flows will do to the minerals in the soil.

It can uncover sand beds, and add leaf litter debris where there wasn't any before(talk about casting artifacts). Floods can add soil or strip away layers. I've seen both. I've fished in areas before a flood and after a flood the spot is gone. Soil along the Flint river can range from rich, dark, forest soil, to sand, to red clay, to grey clay, to compact sand dirt mixture. Along that neck of the woods you can get ground with lots of mineral rock too. Really depend on how the Flint River floods out.

humm, as much as I hate to say this, I may have to cry uncle on this one. Which does not make me happy at all.

Ok, moving on to the second part of the research.

The Onion Mountain soil.

First I was sent a geological map of California showing the volcanic bedrock by Anton Wroblewski, PhD geologist.

I used Mapquest to find OM and Bluecreek Mt. and overlayed their locations on the map by matching the features such as the Klamath river. Here is a closeup, showing the area is within the "Ultramafic rocks chiefly of Mesozoic age".