To recognize the pattern shown here, you will see that the initial spot of contact is circle in red. I initially poured in the lower portion of the track, then moved up to the middle of the track, as you can see the concentric wavy lines start to originate from there, hence two circles for initla contact. The concentric wavy lines are in orange, and the furrow near the parameter of the artifact region is outlined in blue.
Click to view animation:
To recognize the pattern shown here, you will see that the initial spot of contact is circled in red. I initially poured in the lower portion of the track, then moved up to the middle of the track, as you can see the concentric wavy lines start to originate from there, hence two circles for initial contact. The concentric wavy lines are in orange, and the furrow near the parameter of the artifact region is outlined in blue.
Click to view animation:
Full Version: More dermal experimentation
Now let's take a look at the Onion Mt. casts.
Here we have CA-20, this is not the cast said by Jimmy Chilcutt to have dermal ridges, but is a track from the same incident at Onion Mt./Blue Creek Mt.
The initial spot of contact is not obvious in this one, but we can see the furrow (outlined in blue) and the concentric wavy lines (outlined in orange).
Click to view animation:
Here we have CA-20, this is not the cast said by Jimmy Chilcutt to have dermal ridges, but is a track from the same incident at Onion Mt./Blue Creek Mt.
The initial spot of contact is not obvious in this one, but we can see the furrow (outlined in blue) and the concentric wavy lines (outlined in orange).
Click to view animation:
Take a good look at that cast, it lacks any detail whatsoever, no toe impressions, no ball or double ball, and yet these deep lines show up (the furrows) along with the concentric wavy lines, that could be interpreted as dermals. Here is a closeup of the heel.
Click to view animation:
Click to view animation:
Another closeup of the heel of CA-20, again showing this same pattern. As shown in the first image of this track, this furrow continues all the way around the track and across the middle. There is no way this could be dermal riges, there is no detail whatsoever in the track itself. This shows that the soil these casts were casted in supported casting artifacts.
Click to view animation:
Click to view animation:
Now on the left is the cast said to have dermal ridges, CA-19.
As you can see, it has the same pattern as the test cast. Red circle shows the initial pour spot, blue outline shows the furrow, orange outline shows the wavy concentric lines interpretd as dermal ridges.
Click to view animation:
On the right is a closeup of the heel of CA-19, again with the furrow and concentric lines outlined.
Click to view animation:
As you can see, it has the same pattern as the test cast. Red circle shows the initial pour spot, blue outline shows the furrow, orange outline shows the wavy concentric lines interpretd as dermal ridges.
Click to view animation:
On the right is a closeup of the heel of CA-19, again with the furrow and concentric lines outlined.
Click to view animation:
I should take this moment to say the photos of CA-20 were taken by Tube in Jeff Meldrum's lab during the Pocatello conference.
The above photos of CA-19 were taken by Zack Clothier in an article about dermal riges in track casts, here is the link:
http://www.bigfootresearch.com/index.php?name...cle&sid=131
Here is another photo of CA-19 taken by Tube with a closer look at the heel, notice how the concentric lines do not follow the shape of the foot that made them. Instead, they follow the lumpiness of the substrate itself.
Click to view animation:
The above photos of CA-19 were taken by Zack Clothier in an article about dermal riges in track casts, here is the link:
http://www.bigfootresearch.com/index.php?name...cle&sid=131
Here is another photo of CA-19 taken by Tube with a closer look at the heel, notice how the concentric lines do not follow the shape of the foot that made them. Instead, they follow the lumpiness of the substrate itself.
Click to view animation:
Here is a side view of CA-19, showing more of the artifacts following the lumpy substrate instead of the form of the foot.
Click to view animation:
Click to view animation:
Here is a closeup of of the medial side of CA-19. Notice how at the top of the image (plantar surface of the cast) the ridges start out close together and small, but as they reach the bottom of the image (dorsal surface of the cast) they start to expand and become lumpy, the casting material slumping out and bulging like jelly being squeezed out of a sandwhich. If you look at your own dermal ridges, they don't do this.
Click to view animation:
Click to view animation:
But you can see this same pattern on the lateral and medial sides of my own test cast. Small ridges on plantar side, progressively becoming large and lumpy towards the dorsal side of the track.
Click to view animation of the 2 images on the left:
And on the right is a direct comparison of this pattern:
Click to view animation of the 2 images on the left:
And on the right is a direct comparison of this pattern:
You'll also notice in the medial side of the test cast that the concentric lines will follow the ball of the foot, running along where the ball of the foot meets the toes. This pattern is also seen on CA-19.
Click to view animation:
Click to view animation:
CA-19 also has the line pattern going into areas where the foot doesn't seem to be. Though most of the cast is the foot, we can see in the overflow in front of the toes that the line pattern also seems to be there.
Click to view animation:
Click to view animation:
Here is an illustration that seems to show the dermal ridge pattern of primates, with CA-19 and the test cast added in.
Which pattern does CA-19 match the closest?
Which pattern does CA-19 match the closest?
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 12 2007, 12:57 AM) 
Question... Could similar artifacts also be introduced by compression and displacement of the casting mixture?
Could you explain this a little more?
I think you've answered it, I should have waited for your explanation.
Very nice Wolfie
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 12 2007, 03:06 AM)
CA-19 also has the line pattern going into areas where the foot doesn't seem to be. Though most of the cast is the foot, we can see in the overflow in front of the toes that the line pattern also seems to be there.
Click to view animation:
Click to view animation:
I just find it incomprehensible that the experts who deemed these artifacts to be dermal ridges, seem to ignore the fact these features appear in the over-splash areas of the casts..
These same experts also seem to be in denial about the absence of flexion creases in the presence of much finer detail, that dermals would represent.
Wolftrax, thank you so much for this. Your illustrations certainly explain a lot. :icon14:
Wolftrax - is it the soil or the method or both? Have you tried the method in non-pumice soil or other casting material in the pumice? I wonder if it is a factor of very dry soil and poor casting material.
Thanks you guys, but the real credit goes to Tube, as this has just been replication of his method and confirmaton of results and a graphic view of his own presentation. Tube observed all of this phenomenon long ago and identified it. The "Initial pour spot, furrow, wavy concentric lines" pattern he identified and described, and this helps to identify when this phenomenon is occurring.
I will try to answer questions to the best of my ability but I have to make it clear this has been just 1 day of testing and observation, many of the answers already are in Tube's thread and on his website and rely on a few years of testing and observation:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=11363&st=0
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm
I was pretty burnt out last night at about 1 am and just wanted to be sure of what you were asking, because I was questioning along the same lines. I noticed right as I poured the casting material and immediately after the pumice was being moved at the eges by the contact of the plaster. The pumice is very light and will float in the air for awhile after poured, so I'm wondering if this is the air being squeezed out between the pumice and plaster? So is this something that could be reproduced by any fine, dry, dusty material that floats on air? Green kept talking about all the dust flying around from the road crew. Or is this a chemical reaction, desiccation (the water from the plaster being absorbed by the pumice) as theorized by Anton Wroblewski? Maybe a combination of both? I don't know.
Again, on soil and method, Tube woul be more qualified to answer than myself. I mixed the casting material as advised to the thickness of pancake batter, poured from just a few inches above the track, etc. Tube tested on other substrates besides pumice such as Duwamish river soil as well as natural clays and Lon Erickson got artifacts from Idaho Loess soil. Tube stated at the beginning of his thread that organic soils seem to inhibit the artifacts while use of a barrier spray prevents them.
Tube also used Hydrocal in the pumice/volcanic ash (and was criticised for it) and got the same result.
Anyways, I did test some of the soil in my backyard which seems to be organic as it's dark brown, has grass growing in it, is fertilized and regularly irrigated and landscaped, so I don't have a lot of confidence in it as I didn't dry it out to match the conditions of the OM event. I pretty much realized I had more casting material than I anticipated, and quickly used a rock to dig a foot shape in the ground and casted it. The substrate adhered to it pretty strongly so I've been letting it dry out before I finish cleaning it.
Thanks JJ and Painty!
So pretty much that was it, I just replicated Tube's method and got the same result. It really was as easy as making pancakes, in fact so easy that I made me seriously question all tracks, considering that in certain cases we only have someone's word (such as Freeman's) that a cast is the original or the substrate it was made in. If you ever get the chance, it's well worth it to see Tube's presentation in person, as really holding these casts and being able to turn them is 100 times better than photos, but I tried my best to show what Tube has been talking about through a 2d medium. If you can't see him in person, go ahead and contact him, he's always been more than happy to talk about his tests and results and toss around ideas, and to inspire others to do their own experimentation (unfortunately, this was seen as a personal challenge by one inividual). Most of all he's been completely honest, which brings me to review this part again.
I just cannot believe you guys can't see this as an accusation (bold emphasis mine)
Not to mention this false statement and accusation, she did not replicate his methods and is trying to lead people to believe she did to discredit his experiment:
(bold emphasis mine)
and I don't understand how you cannot see this as a threat:
(bold emphasis mine)
Re-read this thread, or the one where Melissa goes on and on about how hot water was the cause of Tube's artifacts. Not once did she even try to get pumice/volcanic ash (as it's shown to be available on a popular store's website based in Houston), and her statements about volcanic ash being illegal to sell and ship were also baseless, the Mt. St. Helens website itself will sell and ship you ash. Pumice and volcanic ash are referred to as the same thing, and this test proved they react the same way to plaster of paris. Seattle pottery did have pumice/volcanic ash that day, just not from Helens. Who established the ash had to be from Helens? Melissa did! People state she was asking questions, think about it, who was she asking? Certainly not Tube, he had left here before, she was asking the audience she was presenting her case to, to cast doubt on tube's credibility. Maybe I am fortunate to have started skiing at a young age, but when we refer to virgin snow we mean that it does not have tracks in it, it's been unused. Me asking Tube what he meant by "Virgin volcanic ash" was redundant, and if Melissa got confused by the term it was HER responsibility to ask him what he meant before stumbling down a fantasy she constructed.
I don't think she has been stumbling though, I think she manipulated it. Again, re-read this thread and the one where she is talking about hot water as being the cause of artifacts. She states what she claims to be facts, but won't give the source, won't give the documentation but her own interpretation. Despite Green's statement that the temperature was 100 degrees that day, she claimed it was in the 80s. When I asked for her source, she told me it was based on an average. When I asked what the average was based on, she claimed I was attacking her and couldn't read and to find the answers myself.
In this thread, she states OM does not have volcanic ash without showing the documentation. The documents show OM and Bluecreek MT. do have volcanic material. In case anybody is wise enough to find that out, she states the construction crew only digs a few inches and replaces the top soil. Again, no documentation to support that, because if there was it would be evident the crew would be working into bedrock and bringing the minerals up to the surface. The whole point is moot, however, because the chain of custoy of the cast is questionable an the process of replication use most likely introuced a substrate of unknown origins. The copy issue was brought up at the beginning of this thread but dismissed casually. She claimed she didn't get the same results as Tube following his methods and labels the artifacts "Crowley lines" as if only he can create them. When she is questioned about why she did not follow his procedures she creates a diversion by falsely claiming that not only can she not get volcanic ash, but that it is illegal, and first implies, then asserts, then blatantly accuses Tube of getting the ash from GPNF. In fact, the ONLY source amongst all her mysterious experts and "Facts" ever given is the law concerning the GPNF and removal of material from the National Forest. Anyboy questions her on her implications and accusations quickly has the law thrown at them, let them argue with the law instead of her. A diversion.
And again, if you insist on documentation, she will tell you to READ her answers. Read what? Her continual line of BS?!
This experiment took me one day. 1 DAY! She could've accomplished this long ago, she could have tried pumice, but instead created this months long deception.
That's not science, that is the opposite of science.
I will try to answer questions to the best of my ability but I have to make it clear this has been just 1 day of testing and observation, many of the answers already are in Tube's thread and on his website and rely on a few years of testing and observation:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=11363&st=0
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm
QUOTE( Blackdog @ Feb 12 2007 @ 12:57 AM)
Question... Could similar artifacts also be introduced by compression and displacement of the casting mixture?
I was pretty burnt out last night at about 1 am and just wanted to be sure of what you were asking, because I was questioning along the same lines. I noticed right as I poured the casting material and immediately after the pumice was being moved at the eges by the contact of the plaster. The pumice is very light and will float in the air for awhile after poured, so I'm wondering if this is the air being squeezed out between the pumice and plaster? So is this something that could be reproduced by any fine, dry, dusty material that floats on air? Green kept talking about all the dust flying around from the road crew. Or is this a chemical reaction, desiccation (the water from the plaster being absorbed by the pumice) as theorized by Anton Wroblewski? Maybe a combination of both? I don't know.
QUOTE( Hairyman)
Wolftrax - is it the soil or the method or both? Have you tried the method in non-pumice soil or other casting material in the pumice? I wonder if it is a factor of very dry soil and poor casting material.
Again, on soil and method, Tube woul be more qualified to answer than myself. I mixed the casting material as advised to the thickness of pancake batter, poured from just a few inches above the track, etc. Tube tested on other substrates besides pumice such as Duwamish river soil as well as natural clays and Lon Erickson got artifacts from Idaho Loess soil. Tube stated at the beginning of his thread that organic soils seem to inhibit the artifacts while use of a barrier spray prevents them.
Tube also used Hydrocal in the pumice/volcanic ash (and was criticised for it) and got the same result.
Anyways, I did test some of the soil in my backyard which seems to be organic as it's dark brown, has grass growing in it, is fertilized and regularly irrigated and landscaped, so I don't have a lot of confidence in it as I didn't dry it out to match the conditions of the OM event. I pretty much realized I had more casting material than I anticipated, and quickly used a rock to dig a foot shape in the ground and casted it. The substrate adhered to it pretty strongly so I've been letting it dry out before I finish cleaning it.
Thanks JJ and Painty!
So pretty much that was it, I just replicated Tube's method and got the same result. It really was as easy as making pancakes, in fact so easy that I made me seriously question all tracks, considering that in certain cases we only have someone's word (such as Freeman's) that a cast is the original or the substrate it was made in. If you ever get the chance, it's well worth it to see Tube's presentation in person, as really holding these casts and being able to turn them is 100 times better than photos, but I tried my best to show what Tube has been talking about through a 2d medium. If you can't see him in person, go ahead and contact him, he's always been more than happy to talk about his tests and results and toss around ideas, and to inspire others to do their own experimentation (unfortunately, this was seen as a personal challenge by one inividual). Most of all he's been completely honest, which brings me to review this part again.
I just cannot believe you guys can't see this as an accusation (bold emphasis mine)
QUOTE( Melissa)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=230...;postcount=1112
To be completely honest - My work has never been about proving Tube wrong, he and others would like to make it into a contest between him and myself and I do get drawn into the pissing contest, but my work is about so much more than what Tube can or can not create. Fact is Tube - your not being honest and you know it. On the BFF - many people one afternoon called Seattle Supply Co - and they were all told (and the workers angered) they do NOT have Volcanic ash - let alone VIRGIN volcanic ash..They do get it in from time to time, but they do not keep it in stock, and when they were basically harassed by phone - the official response from that store was, they had not had Volcanic ash in a while and didn't know if or when they would get it again. What they display on their website is PUMICE - which we both know is a much different substance than Virgin Volcanic Ash. If you want the information Tube - go find it, its out there, thats pretty much the same advice you gave me.. Do it yourself. Which is excellent advice.
To be completely honest - My work has never been about proving Tube wrong, he and others would like to make it into a contest between him and myself and I do get drawn into the pissing contest, but my work is about so much more than what Tube can or can not create. Fact is Tube - your not being honest and you know it. On the BFF - many people one afternoon called Seattle Supply Co - and they were all told (and the workers angered) they do NOT have Volcanic ash - let alone VIRGIN volcanic ash..They do get it in from time to time, but they do not keep it in stock, and when they were basically harassed by phone - the official response from that store was, they had not had Volcanic ash in a while and didn't know if or when they would get it again. What they display on their website is PUMICE - which we both know is a much different substance than Virgin Volcanic Ash. If you want the information Tube - go find it, its out there, thats pretty much the same advice you gave me.. Do it yourself. Which is excellent advice.
Not to mention this false statement and accusation, she did not replicate his methods and is trying to lead people to believe she did to discredit his experiment:
(bold emphasis mine)
QUOTE
I find that usually when your being attacked, your doing something right. I must be doing a great job lmao. I'm not here to argue or fight with anyone, but I wont sit back and allow anyone to misquote or mis-state the facts surrounding my work, as anyone would do. I have in fact completed tests that were to the specifications tube stated - and I could not duplicate his work, there must be a reason and for him to take that as a reflection upon him or his own work - well I think its time to lower the ego. This isn't about anything for me but getting to the bottom of a mystery.
and I don't understand how you cannot see this as a threat:
(bold emphasis mine)
QUOTE( Melissa)
Is that really a battle you want to pick? Choose better tube.
3. The only place you will get Volcanic Ash - that is pure ash, is from a Volcano (unless your claiming your Ash did not come from a Volcano) Now as I stated (many times and I will not state it again) it is illegal to take Volcanic Ash out of Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand if you remove that substance from the park - it would also be illegal to ship, and the US Mail is federal. Would you like to play that legal game? I would strongly advise against that. Twist it all you want, but I could not find one store in Washington or Oregon that had Volcanic Ash in stock, and my only other option would be to take it from the Park. Your really making a big deal out of something a 16 year old can comprehend. Once again, your wrong - pick your battles better tube.. If you don't believe me call Gifford Pinchot National Forest yourself, they will be more than happy to tell you what I just did. You seem to think your the last word on everything - including the law, I was unaware you had a legal degree.. Speaking as a Paralegal - I know what side of the law I would prefer to be on.
3. The only place you will get Volcanic Ash - that is pure ash, is from a Volcano (unless your claiming your Ash did not come from a Volcano) Now as I stated (many times and I will not state it again) it is illegal to take Volcanic Ash out of Gifford Pinchot National Forest. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand if you remove that substance from the park - it would also be illegal to ship, and the US Mail is federal. Would you like to play that legal game? I would strongly advise against that. Twist it all you want, but I could not find one store in Washington or Oregon that had Volcanic Ash in stock, and my only other option would be to take it from the Park. Your really making a big deal out of something a 16 year old can comprehend. Once again, your wrong - pick your battles better tube.. If you don't believe me call Gifford Pinchot National Forest yourself, they will be more than happy to tell you what I just did. You seem to think your the last word on everything - including the law, I was unaware you had a legal degree.. Speaking as a Paralegal - I know what side of the law I would prefer to be on.
Re-read this thread, or the one where Melissa goes on and on about how hot water was the cause of Tube's artifacts. Not once did she even try to get pumice/volcanic ash (as it's shown to be available on a popular store's website based in Houston), and her statements about volcanic ash being illegal to sell and ship were also baseless, the Mt. St. Helens website itself will sell and ship you ash. Pumice and volcanic ash are referred to as the same thing, and this test proved they react the same way to plaster of paris. Seattle pottery did have pumice/volcanic ash that day, just not from Helens. Who established the ash had to be from Helens? Melissa did! People state she was asking questions, think about it, who was she asking? Certainly not Tube, he had left here before, she was asking the audience she was presenting her case to, to cast doubt on tube's credibility. Maybe I am fortunate to have started skiing at a young age, but when we refer to virgin snow we mean that it does not have tracks in it, it's been unused. Me asking Tube what he meant by "Virgin volcanic ash" was redundant, and if Melissa got confused by the term it was HER responsibility to ask him what he meant before stumbling down a fantasy she constructed.
I don't think she has been stumbling though, I think she manipulated it. Again, re-read this thread and the one where she is talking about hot water as being the cause of artifacts. She states what she claims to be facts, but won't give the source, won't give the documentation but her own interpretation. Despite Green's statement that the temperature was 100 degrees that day, she claimed it was in the 80s. When I asked for her source, she told me it was based on an average. When I asked what the average was based on, she claimed I was attacking her and couldn't read and to find the answers myself.
In this thread, she states OM does not have volcanic ash without showing the documentation. The documents show OM and Bluecreek MT. do have volcanic material. In case anybody is wise enough to find that out, she states the construction crew only digs a few inches and replaces the top soil. Again, no documentation to support that, because if there was it would be evident the crew would be working into bedrock and bringing the minerals up to the surface. The whole point is moot, however, because the chain of custoy of the cast is questionable an the process of replication use most likely introuced a substrate of unknown origins. The copy issue was brought up at the beginning of this thread but dismissed casually. She claimed she didn't get the same results as Tube following his methods and labels the artifacts "Crowley lines" as if only he can create them. When she is questioned about why she did not follow his procedures she creates a diversion by falsely claiming that not only can she not get volcanic ash, but that it is illegal, and first implies, then asserts, then blatantly accuses Tube of getting the ash from GPNF. In fact, the ONLY source amongst all her mysterious experts and "Facts" ever given is the law concerning the GPNF and removal of material from the National Forest. Anyboy questions her on her implications and accusations quickly has the law thrown at them, let them argue with the law instead of her. A diversion.
And again, if you insist on documentation, she will tell you to READ her answers. Read what? Her continual line of BS?!
This experiment took me one day. 1 DAY! She could've accomplished this long ago, she could have tried pumice, but instead created this months long deception.
That's not science, that is the opposite of science.
I actually enjoyed the part of your post that dealt with the casting artifacts and your own experiments in relation to Tube's. What occurred between Melissa and Tube is none of my business and unimportant to me. Enjoyed everything before you got to that point though. 
If everyone will please turn to page 256 of Jeff Meldrum's book, you'll find experiments were done in his lab to determine "whether these features might be an artifact of creating the cast in the fine dust". Loess was used. "Similar patterns of ridge preservation were replicated."
"These artifacts did not consistantly exhibit uniform width or other fine details characteristic of dermatoglyphics; nor could these conditions account for ridge detail in casts poured in wet sand or mud."
There's a lot going on on that cast and I don't see much of it happening on the test casts.
"These artifacts did not consistantly exhibit uniform width or other fine details characteristic of dermatoglyphics; nor could these conditions account for ridge detail in casts poured in wet sand or mud."
There's a lot going on on that cast and I don't see much of it happening on the test casts.
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 13 2007, 12:19 PM)
If everyone will please turn to page 256 of Jeff Meldrum's book, you'll find experiments were done in his lab to determine "whether these features might be an artifact of creating the cast in the fine dust". Loess was used. "Similar patterns of ridge preservation were replicated."
"These artifacts did not consistantly exhibit uniform width or other fine details characteristic of dermatoglyphics; nor could these conditions account for ridge detail in casts poured in wet sand or mud."
There's a lot going on on that cast and I don't see much of it happening on the test casts.
"These artifacts did not consistantly exhibit uniform width or other fine details characteristic of dermatoglyphics; nor could these conditions account for ridge detail in casts poured in wet sand or mud."
There's a lot going on on that cast and I don't see much of it happening on the test casts.
Then show it.
QUOTE(ARsquatch @ Feb 13 2007, 11:28 AM)
I actually enjoyed the part of your post that dealt with the casting artifacts and your own experiments in relation to Tube's. What occurred between Melissa and Tube is none of my business and unimportant to me. Enjoyed everything before you got to that point though.
No, it's not just between them, it's on a public forum, it's what this thread has been about, it's what her "Research" has been about, and if you really felt that way you would've said something a long time ago when she started all of this.
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 13 2007, 12:24 PM)
Then show it.
From Jimmy Chilcutt's presentation at Willow Creek Symposium 2003:
Click to view attachment
He speciffically talked about this area and this is what was shown on the screen:
Thank you wolftrax - I appreciate what you have done.
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 13 2007, 02:42 PM)
From Jimmy Chilcutt's presentation at Willow Creek Symposium 2003:
Click to view attachment
He speciffically talked about this area and this is what was shown on the screen:
Click to view attachment
He speciffically talked about this area and this is what was shown on the screen:
The detail looks just like the artifacts being discussed...
Where is there " a lot more going on " ?
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 13 2007, 12:08 PM)
No, it's not just between them, it's on a public forum, it's what this thread has been about, it's what her "Research" has been about, and if you really felt that way you would've said something a long time ago when she started all of this.
Perhaps what I should have said was the personal innuendo and accusations "should" have remained between Melissa and Tube. Unfortunately they're being aired out on a public forum. It appears at least to me that Tube has stopped posting here about it, and Melissa hasn't said anything in response to your posts either lately. It looks to me like you're the one who keeps bringing up the personal accusations. Why? All that most of us are interested in (I'd venture to guess) is the casting artifacts not the drama surrounding them.
I don't have a side in this, but I think you believe I do. I did't follow this thread back in the day and certainly wasn't interested in the "who did what to whom" because it isn't valuable information for me. I personally would like to continue to learn about the casting artifacts, however. Any presumptions otherwise are entirely your own. I have no ulterior motivies and because you apparently think I do doesn't make it true. Would it be possible to just discuss the casting methodology and artifacts ? :smile:
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Feb 13 2007, 02:59 PM)
The detail looks just like the artifacts being discussed...
Where is there " a lot more going on " ?
Where is there " a lot more going on " ?
He was talking about the ball, not the edges. Sorry you haven't seen his talk.
QUOTE(ARsquatch @ Feb 13 2007, 03:42 PM)
Perhaps what I should have said was the personal innuendo and accusations "should" have remained between Melissa and Tube. Unfortunately they're being aired out on a public forum. It appears at least to me that Tube has stopped posting here about it, and Melissa hasn't said anything in response to your posts either lately. It looks to me like you're the one who keeps bringing up the personal accusations. Why? All that most of us are interested in (I'd venture to guess) is the casting artifacts not the drama surrounding them.
As I said, this whole thread has been about that, Melissa's "research" has been about that, and apparently you can't see an accusation for an accusation unless it's me doing it:
QUOTE( Arsquatch)
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.
Quite frankly I just don't understand how you could NOT see her comments as accusations.
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 13 2007, 04:27 PM)
He was talking about the ball, not the edges. Sorry you haven't seen his talk.
You made the claim " there is a lot more going on " ...
Can you elaborate ?
Thought so ....
Wow... let me know if this thread ever gets back to any useful information. I'm not going to align myself to any side on this. Right now it just looks like an episode of All My Children. Cooler heads will prevail.
QUOTE(ARsquatch @ Feb 13 2007, 04:51 PM)
...... Right now it just looks like an episode of All My Children.
Can you believe they killed off Babe ? :new_stun:
That was a complete surprise !!!!
Solved a lot of problems though..
Now to see what happens with Crystal's baby ...
:popcorn2:
I'm more Young and Restless myself....
I noticed over on the JREF board that desertyeti posted pictures of his experiments and stated that he created casting artifacts that also look like dermal ridges...but I don't think they look anything like what tube/wolftrax are talking about. He used a wetter soil, and what he produced looks pretty typical of a cast pour (i.e., nothing anyone would confuse with dermals). I'm not sure if it would be ok to post his picture here, but I think it would make an interesting contrast. SG - can you ask him if it would be ok to post the picture of his cast?
I noticed over on the JREF board that desertyeti posted pictures of his experiments and stated that he created casting artifacts that also look like dermal ridges...but I don't think they look anything like what tube/wolftrax are talking about. He used a wetter soil, and what he produced looks pretty typical of a cast pour (i.e., nothing anyone would confuse with dermals). I'm not sure if it would be ok to post his picture here, but I think it would make an interesting contrast. SG - can you ask him if it would be ok to post the picture of his cast?
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 13 2007, 05:37 PM)
SG - can you ask him if it would be ok to post the picture of his cast?
Sure...
Can't say how soon.. Got to leave cyberland for a while..
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 13 2007, 05:37 PM)
I noticed over on the JREF board that desertyeti posted pictures of his experiments and stated that he created casting artifacts that also look like dermal ridges...but I don't think they look anything like what tube/wolftrax are talking about. He used a wetter soil, and what he produced looks pretty typical of a cast pour (i.e., nothing anyone would confuse with dermals). I'm not sure if it would be ok to post his picture here, but I think it would make an interesting contract. SG - can you ask him if it would be ok to post the picture of his cast?
Did "William Parcher" ask wolftrax' permission to post his digital Patty on the same thread?
I don't recall anything against it in the JREF guidelines. Anything on the Internet is fair game, isn't it? I mean, fair use........
I'll post DY's cast picture if you want. I agree. I couldn't see anything but a few straight lines that didn't look much like dermal ridges to me.
QUOTE(Skeptical Greg @ Feb 13 2007, 04:35 PM)
You made the claim " there is a lot more going on " ...
Can you elaborate ?
Thought so ....
If you can't see the detail on the ball in the pictures I posted perhaps this peel will be a little clearer:
Click to view attachment
The flat area is what got them checking for casting artifacts.
It's true they didn't ask to post wolftrax drawing...nor to make fun of it...but we're better than they are. Out of professional courtesy, I would prefer to have Desertyeti's permission before posting something of his here.
(Of course, I guess I can link to it, and it stay on the other board....there's a thought!)
(Of course, I guess I can link to it, and it stay on the other board....there's a thought!)
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 13 2007, 06:33 PM)
It's true they didn't ask to post wolftrax drawing...nor to make fun of it...but we're better than they are. Out of professional courtesy, I would prefer to have Desertyeti's permission before posting something of his here.
(Of course, I guess I can link to it, and it stay on the other board....there's a thought!)
(Of course, I guess I can link to it, and it stay on the other board....there's a thought!)
But then someone might read the whole thread. :new_stun:
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 13 2007, 06:33 PM)
If you can't see the detail on the ball in the pictures I posted perhaps this peel will be a little clearer:
Click to view attachment
The flat area is what got them checking for casting artifacts.
Click to view attachment
The flat area is what got them checking for casting artifacts.
You really need to explain what you are referring to..
All of the ' dermals ' I have been shown with regard to this cast and others look just like the
artifacts that are shown and discussed above ..
They are also the same as the ' dermals ' that were featured with Chilcutt on LMS .. ( need I post a screen shot ? )
If there is something more compelling, why didn't Meldrum show some clear closeups in the book ?
A side by side comparison of artifacts and real Bigfoot dermals from the same cast would seem to
be in order ..
Did I overlook where such a comparison was presented in the book ?
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 13 2007, 02:37 PM)
I'm more Young and Restless myself....I noticed over on the JREF board that desertyeti posted pictures of his experiments and stated that he created casting artifacts that also look like dermal ridges...but I don't think they look anything like what tube/wolftrax are talking about. He used a wetter soil, and what he produced looks pretty typical of a cast pour (i.e., nothing anyone would confuse with dermals). I'm not sure if it would be ok to post his picture here, but I think it would make an interesting contrast. SG - can you ask him if it would be ok to post the picture of his cast?
Where did Desertyeti™ go anyway? He don't love us nomo? I think his 'opinion' could benefit this discussion.
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 13 2007, 05:33 PM)
It's true they didn't ask to post wolftrax drawing...nor to make fun of it...but we're better than they are.
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 13 2007, 05:54 PM)
But then someone might read the whole thread. :new_stun:
Yeah that would be a shame, especially if they missed this:
QUOTE( LAL@JREF)
QUOTE( William Parcher @JREF)
Does it make you feel better when you see the Cibachrome of Frame 352 that Wolftrax would have been working from? He took great artistic liberties to make a guy in a suit look like a real Bigfoot.
He took great artistic liberties to make a real animal look like ****.
That isn't the first time you felt free to insult people from here and other boards behind their backs was it?
You'll do just about anything to push your agenda won't you? :glare:
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 13 2007, 08:05 PM)
That isn't the first time you felt free to insult people from here and other boards behind their backs was it?
Oh, I'll do it to their faces, too. I would have after what he said to me on this thread if a mod hadn't stepped in. I may be twice tube's age, but I really don't think he's prettier.
QUOTE
You'll do just about anything to push your agenda won't you? :glare:
I'm tired of trying to be civil to people who think the way to debate is to cyber scream at me. My resentment goes clear back to the MIM and Australopithecines. I think I've restrained it rather well. I'm sorry I insulted wolftrax' Patty (not him), but I doubt he likes my Chickadee.
I've been wondering who would be first on this board to get filtered. Would you like the honor?
QUOTE(HarryHenderson @ Feb 13 2007, 07:39 PM)
Where did Desertyeti™ go anyway? He don't love us nomo? I think his 'opinion' could benefit this discussion.
He's been over on JREF. It's been..............interesting. :new_weirdsmiley:
Okay, getting back on topic for a moment, Jimmy Chilcutt took some of the casts home with him, and studied those ridges. Some of them take a sharp bend. That rules out casting artifacts for them. His opinion is that tube has shown casting artifacts could have happened in 1967, but did they? He hasn't proved that.
He's said repeatedly it's not just dermal ridges, it's the characteristics. And I'm not seeing that in these smooth casts with squiggles around the sides.
He's said repeatedly it's not just dermal ridges, it's the characteristics. And I'm not seeing that in these smooth casts with squiggles around the sides.
One more poo-slinging post, and this one is getting locked.
Let's get back on topic.
Let's get back on topic.
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 13 2007, 02:42 PM)
From Jimmy Chilcutt's presentation at Willow Creek Symposium 2003:
Click to view attachment
He speciffically talked about this area and this is what was shown on the screen:
Click to view attachment
He speciffically talked about this area and this is what was shown on the screen:
Yes, the ball of the foot and the lines curve around the shape of the track:
BTW, whoever "William Parcher" is they seriously took that image out of context. They must be a member here as they dug up that image out of the Member's Lounge, the "Talent" thread, and it was never intended as a film recreation. Just playing around with Poser, but they must have known that. Never intended as serious art either, just experimentation.
But opinions can be fickle.
But opinions can be fickle.
I doubt, wolftrax, that they will set the record straight over there either. Too bad too.
So...back to the ridges. IF bigfoot had dermal ridges that ran the length of the foot (as opposed to humans and other apes), what would that look like in a cast? We have nothing to compare it too, so would should we be looking for?
So...back to the ridges. IF bigfoot had dermal ridges that ran the length of the foot (as opposed to humans and other apes), what would that look like in a cast? We have nothing to compare it too, so would should we be looking for?
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 13 2007, 09:08 PM)
I've been wondering who would be first on this board to get filtered. Would you like the honor?
That would be fine.
QUOTE( Scotto)
One more poo-slinging post, and this one is getting locked.
I apologize to the admins and the mods here for that. I have nothing else to say on that subject.
Folks, for what it is worth. I Have tried to follow this thread with a neutral mind set, but I was at the Jefferson conference whenever Matt presented his findings. I was at the tailgate of Matts truck along with wolftrax, ouachita and a few other folks when Matt gave us a private (sort to speak) showing. His (Matt's) experiments are impressive. It really made me sit back and take a hard look at the only evidence of this creature that I had trusted. If dermals can be caused naturally just by the casting process, then I'm bewildered.
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 13 2007, 11:18 PM)
I doubt, wolftrax, that they will set the record straight over there either. Too bad too.
So...back to the ridges. IF bigfoot had dermal ridges that ran the length of the foot (as opposed to humans and other apes), what would that look like in a cast? We have nothing to compare it too, so would should we be looking for?
So...back to the ridges. IF bigfoot had dermal ridges that ran the length of the foot (as opposed to humans and other apes), what would that look like in a cast? We have nothing to compare it too, so would should we be looking for?
This is the part that totally convinced me when I was in Jeff Meldrum's lab. None of these photos can compare to actually holding these casts in your hands, to see how these lines are in layers around the casts.
We do have something to compare them to, the only thing to compare them to, the artifacts pattern. They match. They do not match any of the apes, Chilcutt acknowledges this.
It's been asked why all this about the Onion Mt. cast (CA-19)? Ca-19 is the pivotal cast that lead Chilcutt to believe the dermals had merit, CA-19 has the most pronounced ridges, the best, and the pattern seen on CA-19 is the basis for the pattern seen on all other casts said to have dermals.
This pattern matches that seen in artifact test casts, but not apes.
I'm not out to squash belief in sasquatch, I'm not out to get Chilcutt, I never met the man, and I really like Jeff Meldrum (who couldn't?), but there is an uncanny resemblance here that cannot be matched otherwise.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.