Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: More dermal experimentation
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Research & Investigation
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
wolftrax
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 15 2007, 11:57 AM) *
E.G.:

"The information on page 137 of "Meet the Sasquatch" is part of a paper by Jeff Meldrum, who was misled by the fact that the 13" cast with the dermals that he examined was incorrectly labeled as being from Blue Creek Mountain.

Carefully read, the paragraph starting at the bottom of page 45 of the
original version of "On the Track of the Sasquatch" does state clearly that the print on which I saw tiny lines was a 15" one, but since the reference to the lines is on the following page that is easily overlooked.

I have no idea how the wrong labeling came about, and was not aware that the dermal cast was actually from Onion Mountain until Jeff sent me a photo of it not long ago. I no longer have the original, and don't remember why that is, but I do have an old picture that shows clear identifying marks. It was not, in other ways, a good cast, and until the dermals were noted was not considered important.

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs, B.C., Canada"

And:

"It is on a 13" track from Onion Mountain that Krantz, Meldrum and Chilcutt have identified dermals. The track on which I noted a straight pattern that I likened to wood grain was a 15" track on Blue Creek Mountain road and that is indeed an observation worth thinking about, but I was referring only to the fact that there appeared to be tiny lines running lengthwise along the foot. Carved wooden feet would be no more likely to show an impression of fine wood grain than any other object made of such wood. As a rule wood grain can be seen but not felt. That same track, by the way, caused the tracking dog to react as if it had been subjected to a sudden shock--limbs abruptly stiffened and hair on the back standing upright--a reaction it showed no sign of the following morning . A more substantial reason to consider fakery would be that the Blue Creek Mountain tracks showed up just a few days after I had tried using a tracking dog on the Onion Mountain tracks--but Bud Ryerson was the contractor on that road job and Ray Wallace was long gone from California.

John Green
Harrison Hot Springs, B.C., Canada"
(reposted with permission)


Well, by all means let's see the photo of this track with lines in it.

Green also said this:

QUOTE( John Green)
Matt

I have always left dermatoglyphics to the experts in that field, and for a long time I did not know what cast they were talking about, but that cast is definitely a copy of one I made on Onion Mountain, and it was not a very good cast at all--it was an old track on a road and I am by no means an expert cast maker. When my circumstances changed and I had a limited amount of space for casts I did not keep that one. Are you sure it is the curved markings part way up the heel that are supposed to be dermal ridges? They never looked like anything but a too-thick pour to me..

John Green


And...

QUOTE( Matt Crowley)
Rick Noll has told me that you DID NOT see ridges in the Onion Mountain track before you cast it. Is this correct?


QUOTE( John Green)
Yes


http://www.orgoneresearch.com/cast_history.htm
wolftrax
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 15 2007, 01:11 AM) *
I'll read...........carefully.
Unfortunately the resolution isn't going to be good enough, but these are from Jimmy Chilcutt's presentation at WCS 2003 (and he hasn't changed his mind on what he saw):

Click to view attachment

He was specifically talking about this area:

Click to view attachment

I've seen the lines on the test cast photos circling the ball before the toes, so no need to post those.

It's obvious from a copy I handled there's overflow and a line running across the ball and old air bubbles and new air bubbles and pits that don't look anything like air bubbles and pits that look like air bubbles chipped out and evident bifurcations. Note how some of those irregular pits with rounded edges are only on the ridges. The photos below are of my friend's copy through a magnifier:

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment


Interesting that the air bubbles don't seem to be in Jeff Meldrum's CA-19:
wolftrax
I turned up the contrast on the cast and am pushing the limits of how high res attachments can be to give you a sense of how much detail is in the rigdes and how they are also on the middle of the cast.
LAL
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 15 2007, 10:13 AM) *
Why is this so hard to understand? (and I think you do BTW) CA-19 is a copy, there is no documentation to know the type of material the copy was cast in to. Was is sand, volcanic ash, black dirt, mud, silicone, clay, Silly putty or what?


Latex?

QUOTE
Even if there were actual sasquatch dermals on the original they could have been destroyed by the copying process and if there weren't what has been interpreted as dermals could have been created in the form of artifacts.


Why is that? Plaster is very good at picking up fine detail. That's why it's used for intricate designs in lost wax casting. We used Latex and silicon (on small pieces in the late '60's) for molds. I saw a demonstration of sand casting at Williamsburg where the design of an elaborate candlestick was reproduced with a high degree of accuracy. Colonial gunsmiths used sand casting for flintlocks, which had to be precise. Even the finest sand is coarser than plaster.

OM (CA-19) is a copy and is the first cast held up as an example of these artifacts. That's why it's being discussed.

QUOTE
A similar argument was used against DY's study of the Skookum Cast by his detractors, including you, but somehow, because you want to believe that this cast copy shows dermals, it means nothing now.


Does disagreeing with someone make me a detractor? There are problems with the SC copy that would even affect accurate measurements. Remember these posts from the owner/ curator who's an expert in casting?

"Just what kind of science is DY going to present that would not come across better on TV? He doesn't have all the information yet, is basing what he does have off of painted plastic copies... we are not talking arm length mathematical formulas more of the ability to not be interupted and to gloss over issues. Give time between statement and questions."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=337699

"OK... for those that may not know this stuff, although I am sure it has been posted here before... The original impression is a female. A Hydrocal cast was made from it, destroying the original impression. Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Ron Brown at Derek Randles residence cleaned the cast. The cast was used to make a latex rubber female mold with a mother mold backing. This in turn was used to make a latex rubber male mold and mother mold. The two pieces exhibited at the Texas museum were made from these rubber mother molds and then painted to simulate the original mud coloration. BC artists produced them. They typically color their works. These pieces were made out of gel coat and fiberglass with a light plaster backing and steel rod reinforcement with a wood border.

Each of the molds contains three dissimilar materials and the actual copies contain yet again three dissimilar materials. This is mentioned because the rubber molds do not fit the pieces anymore since the dissimilar materials contracted and expanded differently from one another with curing. Steel, Hydrocal plaster, gel coat, POP, fiberglass and polyester resin, wood. The paint detracts from the pieces if the desire is to quantify. Do not think these pieces are like something from Bone Clones.


Mixing of all materials was by eyesight and experience. I do not think they are museum grade pieces though they serve the purpose they were intended for."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=335686

QUOTE
The double standard is amazing. If a copy is useless as a scientific specimen in one case why isn't it useless in another?


I posted my friend's digital pictures, taken with a high quality camera, of his copy (I don't know what generation it is) because they show detail, including myriads of fresh air bubbles better than anything I can scan, capture or find online.

There are times when there's no choice but to study copies (I've never said they're useless, but they can be misleading), but as DY himself has pointed out, the originals should be seen wherever possible.

QUOTE
In fact in the case of the Skookum Cast Dy's assertions were mostly based on large impressions not on something that requires magnification to see. Which do you think is more likely to be destroyed or created by the copying process?


He based much of his argument on hair flow, which is fine detail. According to colobus, 60% is missing on the copy. Colobus, of course, has seen both. There are also the dermals on the heel which DY says are misidentified elk hair and Jimmy Chilcutt says are not.

Click to view attachment

Below are photos of the original scanned from Noll's clear photo printed in Murphy's book and the copy from an SC thread. Both lose resolution in uploading and photos can't do justice to original casts, but I think it's clear there's quite a difference.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Click to view attachment

DY evidently didn't see the striations in what he took for a joint print and DDA said is a slipped hoof print.

QUOTE
Using terms like "I seem to recall", "I heard" or "I read somewhere" mean nothing without documentation and only serve to confuse the issue, but maybe that's the point.


I gave the page number when I referred to Jeff's book and posted the quotes from Green as soon as I recalled where I'd saved them. Is that not enough?
Blackdog
I really don't think you answered my questions.
Do you know what was used as a mold for CA-19?
I understand why CA-19 is being discussed and I understand a little bit about casting. Many dino bones you see in museums are casts and casts are used for studying details without risking damaging the original, but we don't know if the same type of museum quality control was used in replicating CA-19. We don't know what was used as a molding material and we don't know what generation copy this is. Are you saying that because its cast in plaster it doesn't matter what the mold is made of or what generation the copy is?

This isn't the place for another SC discussion but here is DY's preliminary report. I only found one sentence and a sketch that dealt with hair. He may have talked more about it later but I'm not going to read through the whole thing right now. The disagreement was was largely based on the fact that he reached his preliminary conclusion based off a copy, so my statement stands.
wolftrax
DY was criticised for making a judgement on a copy of the skookum cast because of the details of fur/hair striation and the possibility of paint strokes interfering or changing that pattern.

DY's analysis did not center on the fur pattern, though he did challenge that when it was presented, but the basis of his argument was the anatomy and morphology present.

However, here we have details finer than hair/fur, dermal ridges, and the status of the cast is unknown (original or copy, what generation copy, how it was copied) but DDA stated what was common at the time amongst researchers was to use substrate to copy casts. This interferes in the whole soil issue. Also, evevn if latex was used, or any other method, why then would that make it any better than the skookum cast copy DY analyzed?

Either way, the pattern seen on CA-20 is absolutely casting artifacts, and supports that whatever sustrate CA-19 was made in caused casting artifacts seen in CA-19.

EDIT-- Oops didn't know you were posting at the same time BD
Blackdog
:yeahthat:
scotto
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 16 2007, 12:07 AM) *
I turned up the contrast on the cast and am pushing the limits of how high res attachments can be to give you a sense of how much detail is in the rigdes and how they are also on the middle of the cast.



What is this cast? must have missed something.
Blackdog
Start here Scott.
scotto
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 16 2007, 12:10 PM) *
Start here Scott.


Thanks bro. I did miss that one.

My first thought was "Where in the hell did that cast come from now?" :laugh:
LAL
QUOTE(scotto @ Feb 16 2007, 01:17 PM) *
Thanks bro. I did miss that one.

My first thought was "Where in the hell did that cast come from now?" :laugh:


:new_thumbsupsmileyanim: Yeah, and how much does Jeff charge? Did you get my PM?
MontanaDan
Wow what a huge thread. I have heard more than a few sighting reports of tracks, where the people saw dermal ridges. One that comes to mind was a guy who worked with a logging crew in the early 90's and they saw many huge barefeet tracks on a dusty logging road. They had dermal ridges.

This guy did not cast the tracks, none of them reported it. Just one example of many where people see dermal ridges but don't submit the evidence.

Are dermal ridges honestly 'suspect' now? Are they no longer in the realm of supportive evidence? Because if that's the truth we might as well scrap footprints altogether. Until we have a physical foot people are going to pick apart every cast.
wolftrax
The emphasis here is on documentaion. Not statements, but actual photos of tracks in the ground pre-casting that show dermal ridges.
LAL
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 16 2007, 10:53 AM) *
This isn't the place for another SC discussion but here is DY's preliminary report. I only found one sentence and a sketch that dealt with hair. He may have talked more about it later but I'm not going to read through the whole thing right now. The disagreement was was largely based on the fact that he reached his preliminary conclusion based off a copy, so my statement stands.


You might find his posts on the other board enlightening. He's shown photos to his experts who, after up to 5 seconds (he's timed them), declared the imprint to be of some kind of ungulate. Now that's the kind of thorough research I like to see. :new_tiredsmiley:
MontanaDan
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 16 2007, 11:40 AM) *
The emphasis here is on documentaion. Not statements, but actual photos of tracks in the ground pre-casting that show dermal ridges.


Right, because dermal ridges aren't seen in casts alone, but tied into many reports and sightings where the tracks remain untouched, unreported, un-cast etc. It's certainly rare for people to find a print in such fine material and to have the mind to check for these ridges though.

If anecdotal accounts of dermal ridge in footprints coincides with the physical casts, that should suggest something.
Blackdog
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 12:44 PM) *
You might find his posts on the other board enlightening. He's shown photos to his experts who, after up to 5 seconds (he's timed them), declared the imprint to be of some kind of ungulate. Now that's the kind of thorough research I like to see. :new_tiredsmiley:

This isn't the other board is it? I was only referring to what was posted here. I guess the almost immediate assumption on site that it was a bigfoot impression is the kind of research you like to see.
Why do you always insist on bringing up JREF?
wolftrax
QUOTE( MontanaDan)
Right, because dermal ridges aren't seen in casts alone, but tied into many reports and sightings where the tracks remain untouched, unreported, un-cast etc. It's certainly rare for people to find a print in such fine material and to have the mind to check for these ridges though.

If anecdotal accounts of dermal ridge in footprints coincides with the physical casts, that should suggest something.


The problem is that what the physical evidence points to is that this is a pattern consistant with casting artifacts.
LAL
QUOTE(MontanaDan @ Feb 16 2007, 01:37 PM) *
Wow what a huge thread. I have heard more than a few sighting reports of tracks, where the people saw dermal ridges. One that comes to mind was a guy who worked with a logging crew in the early 90's and they saw many huge barefeet tracks on a dusty logging road. They had dermal ridges.

This guy did not cast the tracks, none of them reported it. Just one example of many where people see dermal ridges but don't submit the evidence.

Yeah, that happens.


Are dermal ridges honestly 'suspect' now? Are they no longer in the realm of supportive evidence?


Naw. Jimmy Chilcutt stands by his statements.

QUOTE
Because if that's the truth we might as well scrap footprints altogether. Until we have a physical foot people are going to pick apart every cast.


Bingo. Already been tried.

What we're seeing in the test casts are lines and bubbles, not anything a latent fingerprint expert would mistake for dermal ridges and characteristics (both of which have to be present). I've even thought of a way to produce pouring lines in mud, but they could hardly be called "dessication ridges".

Since you're kind of new, I should probably explain proponents (pros) can't have "experts" since there are no "experts" in this field. Therefore opinions such as those of a primate foot anatomy specialist, the author of the standard text on primate anatomy and Jane Goodall are nothing but appeals to authority since experts can be wrong (but only if they're on the pro side). If they've chosen to make their statements on national TV or radio, where everyone can hear them, they don't count, since they're not in peer review. Papers being submitted and rejected is no excuse.

On the other hand, opponents (opps) can cite anyone they choose.

See how that works?
wolftrax
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 02:26 PM) *
Naw. Jimmy Chilcutt stands by his statements.
Bingo. Already been tried.

What we're seeing in the test casts are lines and bubbles, not anything a latent fingerprint expert would mistake for dermal ridges and characteristics (both of which have to be present). I've even thought of a way to produce pouring lines in mud, but they could hardly be called "dessication ridges".


That's funny, that's very close to what Diane France said to me about the OM cast.

Waiting for your next photos to show the differences between CA-19 and the test cast.
Blackdog
What did Jane Goodall say about dermal ridges in casts and what is her expertise in dermals ridges vs. artifacts in casts?
Quotes and sources please.
scotto
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 16 2007, 01:31 PM) *
What did Jane Goodall say about dermal ridges in casts and what is her expertise in dermals ridges vs. artifacts in casts?
Quotes and sources please.


I want to read those too.
LAL
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 16 2007, 02:03 PM) *
This isn't the other board is it? I was only referring to what was posted here. I guess the almost immediate assumption on site that it was a bigfoot impression is the kind of research you like to see.


With how many years of follow up with the actual cast?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...amp;hl=Official

QUOTE
Why do you always insist on bringing up JREF?


I don't. I wasn't the one who brought it up here in the first place, but you have a member's option to search the posts.
Blackdog
I certainly wasn't the one who brought up DY's posts on JREF. Who did if you didn't?

The search function sucks over there and I'm not going to waste my time trying to invalidate or validate your argument. Like I said I was referring to what was posted here.
LAL
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 16 2007, 02:31 PM) *
What did Jane Goodall say about dermal ridges in casts and what is her expertise in dermals ridges vs. artifacts in casts?
Quotes and sources please.


She didn't and neither did Dr. Swindler.

I must remember to note <sarcasm> when it is. Some people don't seem to like my sense of humor. :new_tonguesmiley:


QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 16 2007, 02:31 PM) *
That's funny, that's very close to what Diane France said to me about the OM cast.


Even though she hasn't seen it and is not a latent fingerprint examiner.
QUOTE
Waiting for your next photos to show the differences between CA-19 and the test cast.


I've posted the best I have. It's not my copy.

I'm waiting for the characteristics. Do you think a little coloring would help? (I have a new LCD monitor, BTW, so my utter failure to see them on your photos must be my eyes, yes?)
scotto
I am not a skeptic, but a believer.

I can call a spade a spade though, and for the life of me, I can't see how people can look at Tube's work, and not think it matches the dermals on the Onion Mountain cast to a tee.

No matter what he used, what temp the water was, or whatever factors, but just the fact that he was able to duplicate it that closely was an eye opener for me.

We have to police ourselves, and if somebody like Tube does some fine work like that, we should commend him for it. Not every piece of so-called "evidence" is going to hold up to testing or scrutiny.
wolftrax
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 03:06 PM) *
She didn't and neither did Dr. Swindler.

I must remember to note <sarcasm> when it is. Some people don't seem to like my sense of humor. :new_tonguesmiley:
Even though she hasn't seen it and is not a latent fingerprint examiner.


She saw hi res photos and does have experience with fingreprints.

QUOTE
I've posted the best I have. It's not my copy.
I'm waiting for the characteristics. Do you think a little coloring would help? (I have a new LCD monitor, BTW, so my utter failure to see them on your photos must be my eyes, yes?)


Ok, well the air bubbles matched, Meldrum's CA-19 doesn't have the air bubbles your friend's does, I guess you must be wanting to see bifurcations and such. I thought it was apparent in the photos posted, but will gladly show them to you.
LAL
I've seen the V's, not the characteristics. I have no way of knowing if the photos are showing the exact same sections of casts. Are the CA-19s magnified or just blown up?
Blackdog
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 02:06 PM) *
She didn't and neither did Dr. Swindler.

I must remember to note <sarcasm> when it is. Some people don't seem to like my sense of humor. :new_tonguesmiley:

Come on Lu who do you think you're dealing with? You try and pass advice to a new guy here about what is being said in this thread, dropping names and references along the way and now you tell me you were being sarcastic? You referenced Chilcutt, Swindler and Goodall in the same sentence. Is he supposed to believe everything you said, part of what you said or assume you were joking around?
LAL
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 16 2007, 03:20 PM) *
Come on Lu who do you think you're dealing with? You try and pass advice to a new guy here about what is being said in this thread, dropping names and references along the way and now you tell me you were being sarcastic? You referenced Chilcutt, Swindler and Goodall in the same sentence. Is he supposed to believe everything you said, part of what you said or assume you were joking around?


He can assume what he wants. He seems to know his stuff.

I'm sorry you missed the #1 spot. Someone was in line ahead of you. #2s still open though. 'Bye. Been fun.
wolftrax
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 03:17 PM) *
I've seen the V's, not the characteristics. I have no way of knowing if the photos are showing the exact same sections of casts. Are the CA-19s magnified or just blown up?


Could you explain this all a little more?
Blackdog
I've been put on Lu's ignore list it seems. Move over Ray, I'll make some coffee.
wolftrax
:laugh:
LAL
Ray's not on it yet. :biggrin:
Blackdog
I guess I'm not either....yet.
LAL
You are now. The batteries in my wireless mouse died and the post came up while I was changing them.You can have coffee with SG.
Blackdog
Oh goody... I wonder how Greg takes his coffee?
wolftrax
:laugh: I don't drink coffee, but I like Navajo tea and Ginseng tea!

For those of you who are new, even in Meldrum's book it states that Tube's experiments have put the dermals casts in question.
Yetifan
scotto wrote:

QUOTE
I can call a spade a spade though, and for the life of me, I can't see how people can look at Tube's work, and not think it matches the dermals on the Onion Mountain cast to a tee.



Put on some rose-colored glasses...maybe that will help. :laugh:
LAL
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 16 2007, 04:24 PM) *
:laugh: I don't drink coffee, but I like Navajo tea and Ginseng tea!

For those of you who are new, even in Meldrum's book it states that Tube's experiments have put the dermals casts in question.


Not quite. See page 257

"Questions still remain concerning the possible occurence of pouring artifact under hot and exceptionally dry conditions and further experimentation is needed. This challenge has been taken on by an amateur investigator, Matt Crowley, whose preliminary results raise questions specifically about the interpretation of the Onion Mountain cast features as dermatoglyphics."

That's what he said.
Yetifan
LAL wrote, in regards to Chilcutt's allegedly current belief that certain markings
show dermal ridges:

QUOTE
Naw. Jimmy Chilcutt stands by his statements.



When I talked to Jimmy after tube's presentation in Texas in Oct. of '05 I asked him if he
was planning on publishing anything concerning alleged dermal ridges. He told me, and others present,
that as a result of seeing tube's work, he felt he needed to research the subject more before
publishing anything about it.

Since Oct. '05, does anyone have any hard quotes from Chilcutt indicating he still believes as strongly?
LAL
QUOTE(wolftrax @ Feb 16 2007, 03:24 PM) *
Could you explain this all a little more?


I can't really see much but textures in the CA-19 photos. In fact, the magnified photos of the copy I saw showed more detail, or seemed to, than the copy itself until I was able to angle it so that I was seeing more than just smooth white plaster.

One of the characteristics of purported sweat pores is that they tend to occur only on ridges. Another is that they are irregular in shape and another that they have soft rounded edges, unlike air bubbles. This was all discussed by Drs. Krantz and White.


"The possibility that air bubbles might have mimicked sweat pores was suggested by physical anthropologist Tim White, at the University of California, Berkeley, who otherwise thought the casts appeared to represent legitimate footprints. To settle this point, I made impressions of false ridges (with a fine comb) in similar soil, and cast them in plaster. I compared the results with the actual casts, and found that there are, in fact, occasional air bubbles from casting. These bubbles, however, are sharp-edged, and are not as small as the apparent sweat pores. They are rather few, and not regularly spaced or lined up. In some cases, they also bulge out the ridges around them, but only slightly, and with a much thinner wall between the hole and the ridge edge than with the presumed pores (Fig. 13)."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

The copy of OM I saw had large air bubbles from a prior casting but also a slew of tiny air bubbles smaller than the irregulary shaped pits.

I guess I'll have to go to Idaho someday.



QUOTE(Yetifan @ Feb 16 2007, 06:01 PM) *
Since Oct. '05, does anyone have any hard quotes from Chilcutt indicating he still believes as strongly?


I didn't get his permission to record the conversation, but anyone can use a phone. I'm accurately representing his position as of Feb. 13th, 2007.

Haven't any of you researchers tried to check with him?
wolftrax
Well, Lal, I posted the smooth edged air bubbles already, but I also posted the cast Meldrum had did not have air bubbles.

Keep in mind Krantz is not talking about CA-19 when he's talking about the pores and air bubbles, and no matter how hard he tried Tube could not get plaster to pick up pores.

Is that the only thing that is different about your friend's CA-19 (but not Meldrum's CA-19) and the test cast? Air bubbles?
Yetifan
LAL wrote:

QUOTE
Jimmy has picked up pores fingerprinting people.


Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether casts can pick up pore markings.
scotto
QUOTE(Yetifan @ Feb 16 2007, 05:01 PM) *
Since Oct. '05, does anyone have any hard quotes from Chilcutt indicating he still believes as strongly?


Has Chilcutt spoke at all lately?
LAL
QUOTE(Yetifan @ Feb 16 2007, 07:31 PM) *
LAL wrote:
Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether casts can pick up pore markings.


They're smaller. The shape may be helpful.
RayG
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 03:37 PM) *
Ray's not on it yet. :biggrin:


Tell me I've been a good boy LAL. Please, pretty please.... :eek3dance: don't make me get all.. all... you know.. emotional... :wink:

RayG
Yetifan
LAL posted:

QUOTE
QUOTE(Yetifan @ Feb 16 2007, 07:31 PM) *

LAL wrote:
Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether casts can pick up pore markings.



When, in fact, it should have read:

QUOTE
QUOTE(Yetifan @ Feb 16 2007, 07:31 PM) *

LAL wrote: Jimmy has picked up pores fingerprinting people.


to which I responded
QUOTE
Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether casts can pick up pore markings.



LAL then wrote in response to the above
QUOTE
They're smaller. The shape may be helpful.



And now I write: What exactly does picking up pores while fingerprinting someone have to do with
whether or not casts can or cannot pick up pores? You're aware that they're completely different processes?


wolftrax wrote:

QUOTE
Let's keep in mind that we are talking about a dry, dusty dirt road that had been repeatedly filled with dust, the track a few days old, and somehow pores managed to be picked up in a plaster cast, then somehow Green got rid of the cast, and 40 years later where we have no idea which casts are copies or what substrate they were use to copy them, your friend managed to get a who-knows-how-many-times-removed generation cast that has pores, even though the cast clearly has air bubbles.


:icon14: :icon14:
Skeptical Greg
QUOTE(Yetifan @ Feb 16 2007, 08:26 PM) *
LAL posted:
When, in fact, it should have read:
to which I responded
LAL then wrote in response to the above
And now I write: What exactly does picking up pores while fingerprinting someone have to do with
whether or not casts can or cannot pick up pores? You're aware that they're completely different processes?
wolftrax wrote:
:icon14: :icon14:

What Lu seems to be ignoring, is that when you can see pores, whether in actual skin or on a cast, then you will also see all the detail that is larger than the pores ..

If the larger detail is not there, then you are not looking at pores ...

Perhaps Lu can provide a nice sharp image of what she believes are pores in a cast of a foot of a non-human North American primate.. Then we can see all the surrounding detail, and determine if we are possibly looking at pores.

I posted a patch of human skin ( from a foot ) earlier where the pores are visible ..



It seems Lu's inability to to identify real dermals among casting artifacts is cause to ignore my posts rather than answer my questions..

How sweet it is ...


________________________________

P.S.

QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 02:51 PM) *
................

I wasn't the one who brought it up here in the first place, but you have a member's option to search the posts.



Then why don't you use it ? ( the search function )


From what I can tell, you were the first to bring it up ...

................

QUOTE(LAL @ May 30 2005, 04:59 PM) *
Here's a link to the Randi forum, where the arguments are mostly "They don't exist and I don't have to prove it, nyah,nyah,nyah,na,na" and other beginner stuff. There's an occasional hard question.........no, those are mine.

I'm here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&...#post1870921197

I've been quoting Meldrum 'til I'm blue in the face.
Blackdog
Someone else is going to have to post your questions and comments if you want Lu to answer them, you and I are #1 and #2 on her ignore list (congratulations on being #1 BTW :wink:). I expect as the questions get tougher for her and more people ask her to reference her unsubstantiated statements and claims the list will grow longer.
Skeptical Greg
QUOTE(Blackdog @ Feb 17 2007, 04:19 PM) *
Someone else is going to have to post your questions and comments if you want Lu to answer them, you and I are #1 and #2 on her ignore list (congratulations on being #1 BTW :wink:). I expect as the questions get tougher for her and more people ask her to reference her unsubstantiated statements and claims the list will grow longer.

You think maybe she peeks ?


Nahhh... :wink:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.