404 - Oragran family-Witchpec family, moderately deep-Lithic Haploxeralfs,
ultramafic complex, 50 to 70 percent slopes.
Composition
° Oragran family and similar soils: 30 percent of the unit
° Weitchpec family, moderately deep and similar soils: 25 percent of the unit
° Lithic Haploxeralfs, ultramafic and similar soils: 15 percent of the unit
° Oragran and similar soils: 10 percent of the unit
° Unnamed and similar soils: 10 percent of the unit
° Unnamed, frigid serpentinitic and similar soils: 10 percent of the unit
Setting
Landform(s): mountains, mountains Slope gradient: 50 to 70 percent
Elevation: 400 to 4501 feet Air temperature: 48 to 52 ºF
Precipitation: 90 to 116 inches Frost-free period: 150 to 250 days
Characteristics of Oragran family and similar soils
Average total avail. water in top five feet (in.): 1.3 Soil loss tolerance (T factor): 1
Available water capacity class: Very low Wind erodibility group (WEG): 7
Parent material: residuum weathered from serpentinite Wind erodibility index (WEI): 38
Restrictive feature(s): bedrock (lithic) at 12 to 16 inches Land capability class, irrigated:
Depth to Water table: none within the soil profile Land capability class, non-irrigated: 7e
Drainage class: well drained Hydric soil: no
Flooding hazard: none Hydrologic group: B
Ponding hazard: none Runoff class: high
Potential frost action: low
Saturated hydraulic conductivity class: Moderately High
Representative soil profile: Available Water SAR
Capacity (inches) pH Salinity SAR
Horizon -- Depth (inches) Texture
H1 -- 0 to 2 Very stony silt loam 0.2 to 0.2 5.6 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H2 -- 2 to 12 Gravelly silt loam 1.0 to 1.2 5.6 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H2 -- 2 to 12 Stony silt loam 1.0 to 1.2 5.6 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H3 -- 12 to 16 Unweathered 0 - 0 0 - 0
bedrock
Ecological class(es):
Tabular Data Version: 1
Tabular Data Version Date: 06/28/2006 Page 11


Brief Soil Descriptions (CA)
Six Rivers National Forest Area, California
[404 - Oragran family-Witchpec family, moderately deep-Lithic Haploxeralfs, ultramafic complex, 50 to 70 percent slopes.]
Characteristics of Weitchpec family, moderately deep and similar soils
Average total avail. water in top five feet (in.): 3.3 Soil loss tolerance (T factor): 2
Available water capacity class: Low Wind erodibility group (WEG): 7
Parent material: residuum weathered from serpentinite Wind erodibility index (WEI): 38
Restrictive feature(s): bedrock (lithic) at 35 to 39 inches Land capability class, irrigated:
Depth to Water table: none within the soil profile Land capability class, non-irrigated: 6e
Drainage class: well drained Hydric soil: no
Flooding hazard: none Hydrologic group: B
Ponding hazard: none Runoff class: high
Potential frost action: low
Saturated hydraulic conductivity class: Moderately High
Representative soil profile: Available Water SAR
Capacity (inches) pH Salinity SAR
Horizon -- Depth (inches) Texture
H1 -- 0 to 8 Gravelly silt loam 0.8 to 0.9 5.6 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H2 -- 8 to 35 Very gravelly silt loam 2.2 to 2.7 5.6 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H3 -- 35 to 39 Unweathered 0 - 0 0 - 0
bedrock
Ecological class(es):
Characteristics of Lithic Haploxeralfs, ultramafic and similar soils
Average total avail. water in top five feet (in.): 2.6 Soil loss tolerance (T factor): 1
Available water capacity class: Very low Wind erodibility group (WEG): 7
Parent material: residuum weathered from serpentinite Wind erodibility index (WEI): 38
Restrictive feature(s): bedrock (lithic) at 19 to 23 inches Land capability class, irrigated:
Depth to Water table: none within the soil profile Land capability class, non-irrigated: 7e
Drainage class: well drained Hydric soil: no
Flooding hazard: none Hydrologic group: C
Ponding hazard: none Runoff class: very high
Potential frost action: low
Saturated hydraulic conductivity class: Moderately High
Representative soil profile: Available Water SAR
Capacity (inches) pH Salinity SAR
Horizon -- Depth (inches) Texture
H1 -- 0 to 4 Gravelly loam 0.5 to 0.6 5.6 to 6.5 0 - 0 0 - 0
H2 -- 4 to 19 Gravelly clay loam 1.9 to 2.2 6.1 to 7.3 0 - 0 0 - 0
H3 -- 19 to 23 Unweathered 0 - 0 0 - 0
bedrock
Ecological class(es):
Tabular Data Version: 1
Tabular Data Version Date: 06/28/2006 Page 12

The CA Geology map you passed along suggests ultramafic rocks in the area under Onion Mtn, and surrounded by mesozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks that were strongly metamorphosed (changed by pressure/temperature). This is consistent with the soils mapping of the area. Working backwards in terms of the apparent geology of the area: serpintinite is a chemically hydrated form of ultramafic rock. Ultramafic rocks include the peridotite family of rocks as well. Neither perodotite (uncommon in it's virgin form) nor serpentinite represent the same chemical structure from the igneous material from which they were formed. In other words, they are of igneous origin, volcanic in the sense that they originate from a process of magmafication, but by intrusive (internal to the earths crust) rather than extrusive (external to the earth's crust, such as ash or volcanic flows or ejecta). Ultramafic rocks are no longer chemically similar to igneous or volcanic rock. Neither peridotite nor serpentinite are high in silica; actually, they are relatively "silica-poor". From what I can observe from the August 1967 photo of a "footprint" on an unpaved road surface located near Onion Mtn., and assuming the colors are representative, it appears the fine, light brownish grey powdery material on the road surface has high silt or clay content, and shares a dry color consistent with my recollection of material either of serpentinitic, or alternatively but unlikely, marine sedimentary origins. Of course, with the level of information provided me I would not rule out anything; but, the Onion Mtn. area is not a location where significant ashfall deposits are known to have occurred.

-----------------------------------------------------------

One other note: following along the links in Matt's website, re: the link to the soil sampling - the individual who went and sampled soils in the Onion Creek area clearly sampled native forest soil from a relatively intact area, as opposed to sampling road dust which is the substrate to be compared against. That's why the organic contents were so high, and the colors redder.

Lastly, seems like Matt lays out a pretty solid empirical case addressing the "dermal ridges".

You may quote me as long as you include my qualifiers

Good luck to you all in your endeavors. Be sure to come to Willow Creek, CA sometime to visit the local Bigfoot museum!

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

James Komar
Area Resource Soil Scientist
USDA-NRCS
Red Bluff Area Office

And, indeed, if we compare the soil present at the OM site, and the soil that was sent to Melissa and Tube, they are different substrates. Therefore, Melissa's experiment was not an accurate replication of the casting of CA-19.

Lastly, seems like Matt lays out a pretty solid empirical case addressing the "dermal ridges".

I doubt there is a whole lot of road crew action going on anywhere anytime soon...the FS road budget was slashed in half for the coming fiscal year.

I'm not suggesting that tubes methodology is faulty (if you will look back at my previous posts you will note that I have always stated that the fact that he can produce dermal ridges, regardless of the soil type, is extremely significant). My point is that you stated that "Therefore, Melissa's experiment was not an accurate replication of the casting of CA-19" but since tube used volcanic ash in his experiments (and ash is not present on OM), tube's experiments are also not an accurate replication of the casting of CA-19. You can't have it both ways. It doesn't change the fact that tube produced dermal ridges...but fair is fair.

Did you factor in to Mr. Komar the Spill Magic (or whatever that stuff is called)? Do you know if Tube used that in those particular tests? I'd like to know what Mr. Komar's opinion is on whether that would alter results and if so, how?

And, indeed, if we compare the soil present at the OM site, and the soil that was sent to Melissa and Tube, they are different substrates. Therefore, Melissa's experiment was not an accurate replication of the casting of CA-19.

pumice/volcanic ash
updated tue 26 dec 00
Cindy Strnad on sat 23 dec 00

Hi, Melinda.

Pumice and volcanic ash refer to the same thing. However, ash from one
volcano will differ from that of another. Probably ash from the same
volcano, spewed at different time intervals, will differ quite a lot, as
well. Suppliers don't usually specify the source of their volcanic ash, in
my experience. So, it's always an adventure when you try a recipe with this
particular ingredient.

Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels Pottery
RR 1, Box 51
Custer, SD 57730
USA
earthenv@gwtc.net
http://www.earthenvesselssd.com

...Pumice and ash from the same eruption should
be expected to be nearly identical in chemical makeup. The two words describe
different physical properties resulting from just how it ejected the volcano.
The same gasses that create the pourous structure of pumice rock are what can
propel the solids thousands of feet into the air and blast them to tiny bits,
which are then called "ash" as it falls back to earth. So if you know there is
a common source for both the ash and pumice you have access to, you can regard
them as equivalent. ...

Michael McDowell
Whatcom County, WA USA
mmpots@memes.com
http://www2.memes.com/mmpots

Now he says he used Pumice, which is clearly not Volcanic Ash.

Pumice and volcanic ash refer to the same thing.

The same gasses that create the pourous structure of pumice rock are what can
propel the solids thousands of feet into the air and blast them to tiny bits,
which are then called "ash" as it falls back to earth. So if you know there is
a common source for both the ash and pumice you have access to, you can regard
them as equivalent. ...

Care to elaborate on this?

Indeed, I made a test cast using Spill Magic.

I obtained rather spectacular desiccation ridges in this cast. This would have been about March or April 2005. But by this time I had run out of Spill Magic, I went back to Wal-Mart for more, but they were out.

Neither peridotite nor serpentinite are high in silica; actually, they are relatively "silica-poor".

They must grind the pumice into a powder, because pumice is generally a small, weightless "rock" when you find it in the field (we find pumice in arch sites). When ground, it must then look like ash?

In commerce, pumice is the term applied to larger pumice stones, while pumicite consists of fine grains or ash.

Okay, I understand that pumice and ash have the same chemical make-up, however, the difference being the texture of the two with pumice being grainy and ash being much finer and more powdery.

I would like to ask if Tube got the same or similar results with the pumice that he did with the Spill Magic. I'm sorry if that information is found elsewhere. I'm coming into this late. Tube apparently wanted the pumice and then recommended volcanic ash to Melissa for its drying agent which is the same purpose of the Spill Magic. However, Mr. Komar stated about the Onion Mountain soil in your post:
If the pumice/volcanic ash are silica rich (70%) but Onion Mountain soil is silica poor then why was volcanic ash used in the experiments?

I would like to ask if Tube got the same or similar results with the pumice that he did with the Spill Magic. I'm sorry if that information is found elsewhere. I'm coming into this late. Tube apparently wanted the pumice and then recommended volcanic ash to Melissa for its drying agent which is the same purpose of the Spill Magic. However, Mr. Komar stated about the Onion Mountain soil in your post:
If the pumice/volcanic ash are silica rich (70%) but Onion Mountain soil is silica poor then why was volcanic ash used in the experiments?

http://www.normalpeoplelikeyou.com/article...s/sasquatch.htm
I think one of them...was in volcanic ash dust, and it's the clearest actually, it's the best print. The best cast.

Oh, I might mention too, that Northern California cast, the best one with the clearest dermal ridges-- that's not even a "big" foot, it's just 13 inches. It's from a juvenile animal. If you're gonna hoax a bigfoot, you better make it BIG. 16 or 17 inches.

And if it' silica-poor why is he using silica?
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...view=getnewpost

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry322350
Yesterday Wolftrax and I were invited inside Jeff Meldrum's lab in Pocatello. I was allowed to examine and photograph a number of casts in Dr. Meldrum's collection. These casts were some of those made by John Green on the Blue Creek Mountain - Onion Mountain trackway in August 1967. In addition, I examined and photographed 3 casts Dr. Meldrum made of the foot of a human test subject named Lon Erickson on October 19, 1999. The Erickson test casts were made in fine loess soil native to Idaho. The Erickson test casts are interesting for several reasons as they show both Erickson's own dermal ridges plus casting artifacts. The casts also demonstrate why Meldrum was willing to characterize as a "slam dunk" the interpretation of the Onion Mountain cast textures as being casting artifacts, as it is obvious Meldrum was very close to coming to the same conclusions I eventually came to 6 years later.

Why did Jimmy Chilcutt say the OM cast was casted in volcanic ash?

Parent materials moved by wind include sands and silts. Sands moved near the ground surface for relatively short distances. They appear mostly as dunes in rather small areas in southern Idaho along the Snake River and near Bonners Ferry in northern Idaho. Silt, with a small amount of very fine sand and clay, was carried longer distances. This is known as loess. Deposits of loess are extensive in northern Idaho, mostly on the Columbia River basalt plateaus, as well as large areas in the southern part of the state. In more moist areas some of the silts in the loess weathered to clay.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553
I recently paid a visit to John Green, up in Harrison Hotsprings, BC, and he asked me to post some pictures that may never have been seen before of all the tracks found on or between Onion Mt. and Blue Creek Mt. back in 1967. Both Rene Dahinden and John were photographers here, but you can also see the rest of the group has cameras also. These are of course some of the tracks that people have claimed Ray Wallace made. I will point out some interesting features as I go in some of them but first a map showing both mountains and their proximity to Bluff Creek and Notice Creek.

Brief Soil Descriptions (CA)
Six Rivers National Forest Area, California
[320 - Hugo family, moderately deep-Maymen family complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes,]
320 - Hugo family, moderately deep-Maymen family complex, 30 to 50 percent
Composition
° Hugo family, moderately deep and similar soils: 65 percent of the unit
° Maymen family and similar soils: 20 percent of the unit
° Rock Outcrop: 10 percent of the unit
° Rubble land: 5 percent of the unit
Setting
Landform(s): mountains, mountains Slope gradient: 30 to 50 percent
Elevation: 404 to 4501 feet Air temperature: 48 to 52 ºF
Precipitation: 50 to 100 inches Frost-free period: 150 to 250 days
Characteristics of Hugo family, moderately deep and similar soils
Average total avail. water in top five feet (in.): 3.1 Soil loss tolerance (T factor): 2
Available water capacity class: Low Wind erodibility group (WEG): 7
Parent material: residuum weathered from igneous and Wind erodibility index (WEI): 38
metamorphic rock Land capability class, irrigated:
Restrictive feature(s): bedrock (lithic) at 24 to 28 inches Land capability class, non-irrigated: 6e
Depth to Water table: none within the soil profile Hydric soil: no
Drainage class: well drained Hydrologic group: B
Flooding hazard: none Runoff class: high
Ponding hazard: none Potential frost action: low
Saturated hydraulic conductivity class: Moderately High
Representative soil profile: Available Water SAR
Capacity (inches) pH Salinity SAR
Horizon -- Depth (inches) Texture
H1 -- 0 to 7 Gravelly loam 0.9 to 1.0 5.0 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H2 -- 7 to 18 Gravelly loam 1.3 to 1.5 5.0 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H3 -- 18 to 24 Gravelly loam 0.7 to 0.8 4.5 to 5.6 0 - 0 0 - 0
H4 -- 24 to 28 Unweathered 0 - 0 0 - 0
bedrock
Ecological class(es):
Tabular Data Version: 1
Tabular Data Version Date: 06/28/2006 Page 6


Brief Soil Descriptions (CA)
Six Rivers National Forest Area, California
[320 - Hugo family, moderately deep-Maymen family complex, 30 to 50 percent slopes,]
Characteristics of Maymen family and similar soils
Average total avail. water in top five feet (in.): 1.0 Soil loss tolerance (T factor): 1
Available water capacity class: Very low Wind erodibility group (WEG): 7
Parent material: residuum weathered from igneous and Wind erodibility index (WEI): 38
metamorphic rock Land capability class, irrigated:
Restrictive feature(s): bedrock (lithic) at 8 to 12 inches Land capability class, non-irrigated: 6e
Depth to Water table: none within the soil profile Hydric soil: no
Drainage class: somewhat excessively drained Hydrologic group: B
Flooding hazard: none Runoff class: high
Ponding hazard: none Potential frost action: low
Saturated hydraulic conductivity class: Moderately High
Representative soil profile: Available Water SAR
Capacity (inches) pH Salinity SAR
Horizon -- Depth (inches) Texture
H1 -- 0 to 2 Gravelly loam 0.2 to 0.3 5.6 to 6.5 0 - 0 0 - 0
H2 -- 2 to 8 Gravelly loam 0.7 to 0.8 5.5 to 6.0 0 - 0 0 - 0
H3 -- 8 to 12 Unweathered 0 - 0 0 - 0
bedrock
Ecological class(es):

Fly ash and volcanic ash are not natural soils. Can this effect occur in natural soils? Yes. This is a test cast done in compacted river bank soil I obtained from the Duwamish river here in Seattle. I dried and sifted the soil to replicate the dry and dusty soil conditions found on Onion Mountain in August 1967.

1. This is not an original plaster of Paris cast made by John Green in 1967 on Onion Mt. CA, or
2. That the cast presented was salted to look original after having been copied in the mold because the original was destroyed.

7. There was a common practice (Cliff Crook, who in fact gave Grover many casts he collected from others did this) to duplicate a cast in fine sand substrate, making it look more like an original cast then a duplicate.

One of the problems with the Onion Mt. casts is that the location isn't definite. It could have been cast at Onion Mt., or it could've been cast at Blue Creek Mt., or somewhere in between:
Here is the soil escription of Blue Creek Mt.
Here we have volcanic material, residuum weathered from igneous and metamorphic rock.
Now how high is that in silicates? How similar could this be to volcanic ash?

Well, it gets even more complicated. Why? Because of this:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry322350
Here we run into a problem. If this wasn't the original cast, and the chain of custody is in question, and the process of using sand or unknown substrates to copy casts was common, then guess what?

Those artifacts could have been introduced at any time and under any circumstances unknown to any of us.

Well, it gets even more complicated. Why? Because of this:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...mp;#entry322350
Here we run into a problem. If this wasn't the original cast, and the chain of custody is in question, and the process of using sand or unknown substrates to copy casts was common, then guess what?

Those artifacts could have been introduced at any time and under any circumstances unknown to any of us.

I hope Jeff Meldrum won't mind if I quote him:

"The cast I received was labelled "Blue Creek Mtn Rd". John Green indicated that it was more likely cast on Onion Mtn. They are virtually contiguous and so the distinction is a fine one only. There were tracks of these same individuals found on both stretches of the road as far as I can determine."