If this photo from Jimmy Chilcutt's Willow Creek Symposium presentation isn't of Jeff's CA-19, I don't know what it is.

Click to view attachment

There are certainly round (and a few irregular) pits showing in this photo.

Note the line. Whatever that is, it interupts the ridges. How would that happen if the ridges in that area are just from the pour?

No, Jeff Meldrum's CA-19 has substrate stuck to it, hence the known method of using substrate to copy a cast is a significant factor.

Look closely at the test cast, lines will form that will interrupt the flow of the artifacts but they will continue afterwards.

Or the lines that cut across the ridges may have formed after the ridges did ..

If you ask me, any forensic expert can and has studied these dermal ridges before and can easily tell the difference between what is skin pattern and what would be casting lines. It's a shame none have looked into this issue of casting artifacts.

I tend to think of the opposite, similar to the way ocean waves wrap around islands. If that is the case though anywhere the ridges extend pass the obstruction they should show some type of convergence. Or so it would seem.

Does anyone have an example of artifact convergence?

Bittermonk,
I'm definitely not experienced enough to say one way or the other on converging lines as in crossing each other, though the concentric lines will stop and continue in the same flow pattern across furrows and the different levels caused by the substrate. When the concentric lines do run into eather or cross they merge and then flow in the same direction on this cast, hence the look of a bifurcation.

That makes me wonder if perhaps the formation of the concentric lines are unaffected by and independent of the furrows. Me thinks there is still a lot of head scratching left in this one. :new_hmmsmiley02:

Well, though the water comparison is good for recognizing the pattern we can't expect plaster to behave like water exactly, it's not the same consistency and also this may not be a physical action but a chemical one like DesertYeti theorizes, or both.

Another test cast and comparison, thanks go to Tube for providing the photo of his copy of CA-19...

And another...

And yet another...

Wolftrax - I can see the casting artifacts in the second and third photos, but I can't see anything in the first photo...am I missing something?

I'd like to know what you did in the third cast to make such immense artifacts.

Sorry for taking so long to answer questions, I wanted to show more images but my scanner dumped the images I've been scanning for the last few hours.

The first image shown (test cast 6) does not appear to have artifacts on the plantar surface, however they do appear on the periphery of the cast. I will have to scan more images to show these tomorrow.

What I did here was a different method than my initial tests. This time I made a foot from clay using gloves to insure I did not introduce my own dermals. I then used the clay foot to make the impression in pumice. The pumice adhered to the clay when I lifted the foot, I shook the loose pumice back off into the track. I then cast the track, and as you can see the artifacts weren't as apparent, but as you will see they are in important areas as noted on CA-19.

I then washed the clay foot, and made a mold of it with Plaster-of-Paris. After the mold cured, I spread a thin layer of vaseline in it and poured in POP to make a plaster foot. I wouldn't recommend this method as it broke the mold to release the plaster foot.

I then used the plaster foot to make the second image (test cast 7). There was still some adherence of pumice to the plaster foot, so I had to do it a few times to get the pumice not to stick to the plaster. Of course, we still see the same pattern observed in other tests and CA-19 in test cast 7.

For test cast 8 (3rd image) I made the initial impression with the plaster foot again, but this time used the wooden spoon to smooth out the pumice. The pumice did not adhere to the wooden spoon, as you can see the ridges are a lot more apparent as they are in test cast 1. One thing I did here differently was start the pour in the middle, then move to the ball, then the toes (which were made with my gloved fingers, that is why they are wrinkly looking), and back down to the heel, instead of a straight pour.

Ok here is the medial view of the cast from the impression made by a clay foot in pumice (test cast 6). Even though there was a lto of loose pumice, here you can still see the pattern of the concentric wavy lines.

And here is a closeup:

So, wolftrax, you are finding that pumice as the soil type and plaster of paris as the casting material (regardless of how the "print" is created) is always producing casting artifacts? Method of pour appears not to matter, correct? Do any other factors (water temp, purity of water, outside temp) seem to matter?

When I started these tests I bought a thermometer to measure the water temperature, and the water I ran cold from the garden hose. Unfortunately the thermometer would not even register a temperature, I used a thermometer meant to take human temperatures that was waterproof and I can only assume it would register 90 degrees and above. As I was all set to mix and pour, the track already made, I went ahead and poured.

The date of test cast 1 was 2/10/07 at 2:30 pm. Weatherunderground gives the time and temp as:



Test cast 6, made with the clay foot, was made at 2/16/07 at 10:10 pm:


It seems that 7:50 pm is the latest recorded temp they have for that day.

When it came to test cast 7, I had spent most of the morning and day of 2/17/07 molding the plaster foot that would be used for 7 and later tests. I became more involved in studying the flow of the artifacts along the structure of the track, so I did not record the exact time, though it was late afternoon, around 5-6 pm. This would make Test cast 7 at the following temps.



Test cast 8 was on 2/18/07, again I was concentrating more on the structure of the track and associated artifact patterns, so I did not record the exact time, but it was around 10 am when I poured. That would be this temperature:



Knowing that Tube had gotten great results from a slurry temperature of 60 degrees from cold water straight out of the tap, and the ambient temperature of 69 degrees, and other tests he had conducted at the water heated to 100 degrees, Pretty much temperature was covered.

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/Ridge%20Flow%20Pattern.htm

However, if this is a concern, I casted a test cast this evening, and was able to borrow a digital thermometer that recorded the temperature during the casting at 53 degrees, and my water temperature at 43 degrees. This time the water I used was purified water that I put into the freezer to reach that temperature.

Unfortunately, I ran out of the plaster of paris I had bought from the pottery store, but had some plaster of paris I had bought some time ago. This plaster of paris is a brand called Plaid "Faster Caster". It is POP but is able to be put into the microwave to cure faster. In case people start wondering or concluding anything, this is the first time had used it, and the only reason I use it was to do an immediate test to address your question. Also, as there was a limited amount this was a thin pour. I did not put the cast in the microwave, it is curing on it's own and I will post results tomorrow.

However, I will be doing a similar test with POP from Marjon ceramics, not this same brand, the next time I get the chance, probably the weekend after next.

I would again like to reiterate this has been Tube's research I have confirmed with these tests, I'm not taking over his research and I doubt I'll have the time to experiment with every possible temperature known or every condition known to humans.

I did experiment with thick pours and thin pours, though my own inexperience with casting has been a contributing factor with that. I haven't noticed a dramatic difference between the two yet, but it's a long process unless I get two or three going at the same time.

The actual method of pour does have an effect as seen in CA-19, from what Tube and then I have been able to tell. It seems with the pattern of the inital pour spot, the furrows, and concentric wavy lines that Green started pouring in the center of the track, moved up the ball, into the toes, and back down to the heel (my opinion). Difficult to say as I don't have x-ray vision but recognizing how one pours and remembering later when viewing the results helps.

BAHAHAHAHAHA! OMG! I was so not expecting that...I know you are being serious, but BAHAHAHAHAHA!

Did I miss something?

No...it just reminded me of the song "Plaster Caster" by KISS...it got me giggling.... :smile:

:laugh: :new_guitar:

Test 14, cast on 2/28/07 at 7:30 pm, made with Plaid "Faster Plaster" on pumice. Ambient temperature 53 degrees, purifed water temperature 43 degrees.

After seeing the results in test cast 14, I wanted to be sure of the use of plaster of Paris over "Faster Plaster". I again went to Marjon Ceramics, and asked to buy a 50 lb. bag of Plaster of Paris, and got some, only to find out at the last minute this was indeed "Potter's Plaster" which is a better quality than Plaster of Paris. This surprised me, as I was told before what I was buying was Plaster of Paris. The lady who corrected me told me that Plaster of Paris was very weak and chalky, which was why they didn't carry it.

So, not one to leave things to chance, I went to a local art store (Michael's Art Supply) and purchased an 8 lb. bucket of Plaster of Paris. This stuff is terrible, but I did a few tests.

Test cast 16, cast on 3/04/07, at 1:00 am, ambient temperature 52 degrees, purified water 43 degrees, Plaster of Paris on pumice.

I was re-reading "Big Footprints" and the tracks said to be from Freeman and the Elk Wallow area. Very apparent and wide ranging ridges, but I started wondering about the soil conditions. I found this online:



Weather Underground shows a record of that day in nearby Walla Walla as having a high of 91 degrees and a low of 57 degrees.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airpor...eq_statename=NA

June 11th showed a high of 93 and a low of 57.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airpor...eq_statename=NA

June 17th showed a high of 96 and a low of 60.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airpor...eq_statename=NA

Ok, so it wasn't cool, it was hot (though we've seen casting artifacts appear in low temperatures), and we know Lon Erickson got casting artifacts from Idaho loess soil, so the conditions have a good possibility of being there. Is there anything present in the casts to confirm these are casting artifacts?



We've seen the casting artifact pattern continue outside of the foot impression in the test casts, and it does in this one as well.

Conclusion:
The 3 Elk Wallow casts from 1982 show the same conditions that have produced casting artifacts, they show the same overall ridge flow pattern as seen in test casts with casting artifacts, and they show trademarks of casting artifacts in that the ridge flow pattern continues outside of the foot impression. Therefore, it is safe to conclude the Elk Wallow casts exhibit casting artifacts.

By Melissa Hovey

As detailed in numerous articles and discussions available on the web, several researchers were able to produce false dermal ridges, called casting artifacts, using various casting materials and volcanic ash. While this article does not address the issues of such experiments on the reliability of the Onion Mountain casts, it does address the need to identify how and why casting artifacts occur.

For this round of tests, soil that had been sifted five times to remove as much organic material as possible was used. Although the soil was reused due to multiple experiments, it was re-sifted prior to use.



It has been previously hypothesized by researchers that "wicking," a process by which water is pulled from the casting agent by very fine dry soil, is the cause of false dermals. The soil from Onion Mountain indeed is fine and dry, but previous tests (as discussed in Article One) did not produce any casting artifacts.

Since wicking, at least in these experiments, did not produce casting artifacts, water temperatures, ranging from 70 to 100 degrees, were tested. These tests also did not produce any casting artifact.



Next, experiments with the casting agent were undertaken. After speaking with an expert with Gypsumsolutions.com, who has more than 25 years experience and has worked with the FBI to help them understand how to properly use casting agents in the field, several points were made.

1. As long as you are mixing your casting agent properly, what you can see in the track should show up in your finished cast. The water temperature should always be right around the same temperature as the air (plus or minus 5 degrees).

2. Organic material and/or minerals do not play a role in the casting process, nor can various soils rich in specific minerals cause "artifacts" to happen. Minerals and organic material will not affect the casting agent's ability to retain details or cause details that look like dermal ridges, where there are none, as long as the casting agent is mixed properly.

3. Extremes in temperatures and mixing your agent too thick or thin will affect your cast.

Here is an example, with the only difference being the amount of casting agent and water.

Cast 1: 1 cup water and 2 cups Plaster of Paris. This mix is per the manufacturers specifications.


Cast 2: 1 ¼ cup water and 2 cups Plaster of Paris


Cast 3: 1 cup water and 2 ¼ cup Plaster of Paris


All water in these 3 experiments was room temperature, 76 degrees, humidity 25%. This water was not heated.

Notice the gradual change in the cast features. Cast #1 - the disturbed soil in the center of the cast corresponds to the area where the casting agent was poured. Cast #2 - fine pour lines can be seen toward the bottom of the cast, which shows the casting agent pushing out from the center of the cast. Cast #3 – the same affect as Cast #2, only more dramatic.

Although the only change between each cast was ¼ of a cup of either water or Plaster of Paris, the change is fairly remarkable. However, false dermals still were not produced.

The next set of experiments took additional "extremes" into consideration, this time temperature.

Cast 4: Water 105 degrees; soil baked in oven to 105 degrees prior to pouring; 2 ¼ cup Plaster of Paris; 1 cup water; air temperature 76%, with 25% humidity







Cast #4 shows the very same pour lines in the substrate, again only more dramatic. Even with the temperature extreme introduced with Cast #4, false dermals do not appear. The next set of experiments deal with opposite extremes.

Cast 5: Water 105 degrees; soil temperature 50 degrees; 2 ¼ cup Plaster of Paris; 1 cup water; air temperature 76%, with 25% humidity


False dermals do not appear in Cast #5 either.

Summary:

Although this paper set out to determine the cause of casting artifacts or false dermals, none of the experiments resulted in producing them. However, it should be noted that extremes in water temperature and improperly mixed casting agent will result in undesired results (i.e., the inability to cast what you intend too).

End notes: "Plaster Mixing Procedures, USG Plasters and HYDROCAL® Brand Gypsum Cements IG503" http://www.gypsumsolutions.com/brand.asp?prod=17

I'm confused about the point of the above post. What exactly is it trying to prove?

1) That you can't seem to produce casting artifacts?

Try using pumice/volcanic ash as those who have ben able to produce them have.

2) That the Onion Mt. soil you possess does not produce casting artifacts?

According to James Komar, Area Resource Soil Scientist for the USDA-NRCS, who was the only person who was able to provide me the soil info for the area:



It's the composition of the soil you are using that is not the same as that shown at the time and location of the Onion Mt.- Bluecreek Mt. incident in August 1967, and also the unknown chain of custody and method of using substrate to reporduce casts introduces an unknown variable.

Regardless, the patterns shown from casting artifacts is a match to what is seen in the OM cast, but does not match that seen in apes or humans.

Has anyone ( Experts like Chilcutt / Meldrum ) ever really addressed why we can see detail like
dermal ridges , but not bigger features like flexion creases ?

I see where it has been mentioned a couple of times, but not really addressed.

I find ' flexion ' 4 times in the index of Meldrum's book; but none of those 4 references discuss
actual flexion creases found in alleged Bigfoot tracks.

I have spoken with various people about this Skeptical Greg, and so far there is no clear answer (that I know of). With my own experiments however, when I used actual soil, my own flexion creases are hard to see. My own flexion creases seem to cast well near the arch area of my foot - but no where else. When I used the fine substrate Tricalcium Phosphate - I had no trouble casting flexion creases, but I also could not put my bodyweight on my foot to create the impression, now the Onion Mountain Soil I could jump up and down on - and not go through to the pan (even though the soil itself is very fine) and areas I know of on my foot that have flexion creases, did not show up in the finished cast.

I hope all this made sense - I just woke up

Yes, it does. So, the "absence" of flexion creases may just be because they don't tend to show up when cast in soil.

I see no reason sasquatch friction skin would have to have a pattern like apes or humans.

From Meet the Sasquatch by Chris Murphy:

Well, I don't know that with 100% certainty - but it is something worth exploring.

OK,
1. what is the point of sifting the soil?
2. You said the humidity was 25%, what about the humidity of the soil? was that zero due to baking?
3. What altitude was this experiment done at?

Yet you've seen every reason why they have a pattern like the artifact test casts.

To answer your questions.

1. The point of sifting the soil was due to all the discussion of large pieces of organic material. I personally do not see the reasoning behind this - but as it was brought up as an issue, I did one cast in a prior article with unsifted soil and then this set of tests with the soil sifted.

2. The humidity of the actual substrate has never been an issue discussed. In prior experiments the only time humidity and temperature have been discussed is during discussions of the air temp and humidity level in relation to air temp. Baking or heating the soil will remove some of this moisture - if not all depending on how hot you bake the soil to, but that is not something I have tested for.

3. The Elevation of Dallas, Texas is: 430 ft (131 m)

As James Komar stated, the soil itself is composed of organic material as shown by the red coloration of the siol, vs. the mineral material the soil at the actual track site was composed of as shown by it's grey color. You can sift it as many times as you like but it will not change the composition of the soil, the soil you posses does not represent the soil that was present at the track site.

Thats right.. and I would also have to ask, when was that soil report taken? The year prior to the Onion Mountain Track being casted. Organic properties were present in the soil then as stated by Mr. Komar. The soil also showed no signs of volcanic ash, and it tested silica poor.

This does not address why dermals would show, but larger features like flexion creases, regardless
of their pattern, would not ..

A feature like the ' midtarsal break ' should produce a pronounced flexion crease ..

Thanks for responding.

1) You don't know if it's the silica in the volcanic ash or how much is needed to produce casting artifacts. Tube also got casting artifacts from the duwamish river soil, Lon Erickson got it from loess soil, and Tube also got it from natural clay. Do all of these have high silica? loes soil has clay an silt, clay obviously has clay, and the soil at OM has clay as well.

2) Nearby Bluecreek Mt. has igneous and metamorphic rosk, there is a fine line dividing the two areas soil wise, and we don't even know exactly where the tracks were cast.

3) The unknown chain of custody and method known of copying casts plus the doubted longevity of an original plaster cast surviving as stated by ddA throws any dispute about soil out of the window.

4) As stated by James Komar:


and the photo in color of the track site is from here:
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/testing_the_soil.htm

and here it is, notice the greyish color of the track site soil compared to the reddish soil you have.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I have been to the area several times and stayed for quite some time. All I ever saw was very red soil. Color pictures taken and processed from back then undoubtedly could have faded in color and contrast. That color picture doesn't have a chain of custody attached. I would not bank on the color of the soil in it being correct. When I experimented some with the red soil down there it acted quite a bit like clay; really sticking together and forming a very smooth interface with what ever was used to make an impression. It was also very humid there.

Wasn't the soils used by Matt sifted and baked repeatedly in a microwave before being used? I also wonder if there wasn't any contamination of the natural clay deposit collected along the Duwamish River. There is a major processing factory just a few hundred yards away from that site. BTW, that deposit layer may be associated with the largest recorded Tsunami in the Pacific region, one that devastated Japan and drowned whole forests along Oregon and Washington's coasts. It is very grey in coloration, not red.

Did you go there in August of 1967? How about after road costruction was taking place?


As tube stated, Doreen Hooker took the picture.
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/testing_the_soil.htm
not only that, but James Komar also stated that road constructon would reveal the parent material in the area.
Also, Green said this;


You said this before:





You'd have to ask him.



Do you have anything to support this?

Again, a ridge has to have the chracteristics before Jimmy Chilcutt will call it a dermal ridge. I haven't seen the pattern he was talking about on photos of test casts.

Does Wrinkle Foot have lines that could have been caused by pouring? They go up the side of the foot and take a nearly 90º angle across the foot. Whatever caused those, it couldn't have been dessication.

Every characteristic you've shown on CA-19 I've shown in these test casts. Be more specific and show what you are talking about and I will show you it is there.



Before you start hopping to different casts (and I will address wrinkle foot later ) show what details are in CA-19 that haven't been matched in the test casts.

No, in 1969, 88-89 and then in 2003.

I know who took the picture, she sent them to me first and that is how Mat got them. Did she leave them laying out or stored properly, away from heat and humidity? She doesn't even know. Chain of custody would mean that we made fresh prints from her negatives... we can't she doesn't have them. Did the person printing these pictures over compenstate for the red dirt, thinking it should be more grey? Maybe...

Or maybe not.

So are you saying that the pattern shown here on CA-20 is dermal ridges and not casting artifacts?

Yeah, but you haven't got a midtarsal break in the middle of your foot. You know, that pesky thing that only shows up in some bigfoot tracks but not in others.



But that doesn't make any sense. Flexion creases don't show up but smaller dermal ridges do? Flip your hand over palm towards you, and hold your hand arm lengths away. Can you easily see the folds in the palm of your hand? How about the individual dermal ridges on your fingertips? I have no trouble whatsoever seeing the palm-folds, but even when I squint I can't see any dermal ridges/patterns.

So we have a bigfoot track with an obvious ridge/fold area, purportedly caused by midtarsal flexibility, that shows up here:



that is remarkably absent in these tracks/casts:





Any point on my body that has a flexible bone beneath, has either an obvious fold in the skin at that location, (fingers, hands, wrists, knees, elbows, toes, etc.) or a pronounced change of angle from one body part to another (head-neck, neck-shoulder, foot-ankle, etc.).

Gorilla feet have both flexible feet and the corresponding folds:



Bigfoot tracks, in the majority of cases at least, have no folds and exhibit no flexibility, yet supposedly he possesses a foot that, as Dr. Meldrum claims, "exhibits a high degree of midfoot flexibility at the transverse tarsal joint". Wouldn't that mean bigfoot would have to have a foot with a flexible bone in the middle, and there should be evidence of this in all the clear tracks (such as the ones indicated above)?

I really don't get it.

RayG

I have experimented some with tracks of my own feet. Sometimes I see flexion creases and skin folds, sometimes I don’t, but in both I saw dermals. Why? The only thing I could come up with is that there is a basic difference between the two types of skin features.

Dermals are hard friction grooves in the skin. Press as hard as you want and they won’t flatten out. The troughs will not smooth out to the same height, or depth depending on how you’re looking at them as the crests. Skin folds and creases may appear to be permanent features but in reality they are transient, movable, excess skin that fills out when the underlying material expands. When weight is applied to the foot everything inside the foot compresses and the sides balloon outwards. The surrounding skin expands to contain it and in so doing smoothes out the folds and creases found on a non-weight bearing foot. These skin folds and creases flatten out in area to a larger undulating surface.

Maybe this is why skin folds and creases are not features used in identification… never heard of a skin fold or crease print. These folds and creases on the foot may even change from day to day, week to week or year to year for all I know. Dermals do not.

Now I know your going to say but wait a minute, look at a bear paw, creases and folds can be seen in their tracks. I thought about this too but haven’t quite answered it in my mind except that maybe there is a difference in how these “end effectors” react to the same forces… maybe bipedal feet evolved a little bit differently than quadruped paws. Why do we call them paws anyway?

I personally have not examined a bear paw up close like I have my own hands and feet but I think that if I were to stand and walk on my hands and leave tracks with them they would probably leave impressions of the creases I see in them when relaxed. So is it the weight applied? Is it that we flex our hands more often and permanently produce these folds and creases where as our feet don’t flex that much and thus leave them much more pliable, squish-able? Could that be one of the differences between the surface of human feet and bear paws? They use their paws more as hands then we do our feet?

What kind of difference is there in the unshod tracks of humans that wear shoes all the time versus those that don’t? I saw some pictures of some natives in a foreign country once and they looked all weather beaten and cracked. They also looked very large, spread out and puffy, like balloon feet. The cracks might have happened right where normal creases would have occurred… I don’t know. What evolutionary difference might there be between a human foot and that of a Sasquatch when it comes to folds and creases?

We can certainly see other details in Sasquatch tracks than just dermals. Toe stems and skin folding can be seen in a few. Wrinkling of the skin on the sides of toes can be seen in others.

This isn’t a show stopper for me.

The answer would be of course not. CA-20 is completely lacking in detail and the line pattern apparently follows the contour of the substrate, not the foot morphology. As CA-20 is a track from the same trackway as CA-19, this is all the evidence we need that whatever substrate the casts were made in or reproduced in produced casting atrifacts and the test casts show that the pattern seen in CA-19 is casting artifacts.

I can't remember when I've truly disagreed with you Ray. I think you have a similar problem with a lot (most? all?) of the track evidence that I do. There's only one single thing that is consistently noted in track finds. The 'appearance' it was made by a human foot but bigger. "Hey Phil, I saw a track and it looked like a big foot." Absent that, EVERYTHING else about any one track apparently has 150,000 'discussable' variables. And I just don't 'get that'.

I'm not sure we're accounting enough for the obvious and documented diversity in any random sampling of the same type of evidence. Bigfoot Tracks™ in this instance. Ray's point above cannot be overstated IMO. To reiterate, is there a mid-tarsal break or not? And if so, why isn't it more evident? One way we account for Bigfoot's elusiveness is his seeming 'at oneness with nature' because of his seeming 'perfectly suited form'. Thus the mid-tarsal break 'theory' is palatable to me as an adapted trait - certainly worthy of further investigation (in fact isn't it a key aspect that interested Meldrum further?) as it could apparently help explain the 'ease of movement' that's been described a zillion times. Yet, there's really no evidence to support it except a couple of instances. Can we conclude the mid-tarsal break 'theory', while possibly interesting, is way less-than-conclusive? Yet, do those 'flat footed' seeming non-mid-tarsal tracks and casts seem any more 'real' given the distinct variety of form? Not even. Isn't that one pic of a track in soft soil that is almost too perfectly formed considered 'possibly the best' pic/representation of a Bigfoot™ track? Yet despite the bit of fractured soil at the toes, it is not blatantly obvious that it is a track of something that was moving, except for the assumption that whatever made it surely must have been moving. Regardless, why aren't there 30 or 300 casts/track pics of even a similar-but-less-than nature or quality? There's been a hoe-lot-mo-than-a-few casts/pics paraded around through the years that have to be considered WAY-LESS-THAN. I think without exception I would have been embarrassed to claim any of them as having come from 'Bigfoot'.

I'm not a hunter so I don't know, but I know many here do - is there a huge disparity in the features any one set of tracks has with itself or another set of, say, grizzly bears? That is to say, when found, aren't they regularly and consistently 'distict enough' that there's usually little question what made them? Except for size, I will assume a majority of grizzly bear tracks look (essentially) exactly the same. If several barefoot humans were running around frolicking in the meadow in, say, Palmer, Alaska, would Huntster be able to decipher at some point, sooner than later, that that's what it was? I bet he could. Meaning I bet he couldn't not figure it out.

Three, four, five toes, dermal ridges or none, midtarsal break or not, deep, shallow and everything in between, or not. But hardly any two genuinely alike. I think I'm smart, but I still don't get it.

I often wonder why it has to be one or the other? Not every human foot is the same either - high arches, low arches.. If I throw in injury, well - then we will be here for the next year discussing differences in foot anatomy. Womens feet also differ from mens in the characteristics seen on the bottom of the foot. When I first started this, I asked a guy to step in the soil here, just below my apartment by a creek - and I casted his foot.... Then when the discussion of flexion creases came up, I went back into the original dermal thread, because I remembered a picture Tube posted of his own foot. I then went back to the man who first stepped into the soil here for my casting experiment, and I asked to see the bottom of his foot.. I noticed something I have not heard anyone speak about.

If you look at the picture Tube posted of his foot - you cant help but notice the bottom of his foot looks fairly smooth, this was also apparent in the finished cast. Why? I then talked to the man who was kind enough to step in the soil here for my first cast - I asked to see the bottom of his foot, same thing.. Pretty darn smooth, little to no deep skin creases or flexion creases. I then talked to some women I know and asked them if I could see the bottoms of their feet - they agreed, and all these women had deep creases. Could the bottom of a mans feet be fattier, therefore not allowing for the deeper creases in the foot (in some men)? I don't know for sure, I'm not an anatomist. I did find it interesting however.

I'm sure this is not the case for all men, but it is something I have noticed. So, are we dealing with differences in the foot due to the gender? How does age play a role in this? I don't know, but I think we should keep our options open until one is found.

CAUTION: Foot Fetishist on Board