The problem wolftrax - is that I answered your questions more than once, and you still continued to accuse me of avoiding your questions, or simply ignoring them. I can only tell you what I have found. Its really that simple. This should not get personal between you and I.

As for the temperature - again I do not have an issue with testing at 100 degrees.. As, that is what tube did. In my earlier work, heating the water to 100 degrees was not part of the experiments I was doing - as I was going by my email with Mr. Green and the information I had from Weather Underground and the various agencies I did speak with. No where did I find a temperature of 100 degrees associated with this area, during this month - and believe me I looked. You keep saying Air Temperature - well, Humidity can make it feel like 100 - when its only 80, I know this from living in Wisconsin for most of my life. Arizona residents are finally starting to know what Humidity is - and its not fun. But, you do not know what was discussed between tube and I - and I know exactly what he said to me. So, for you to insist his only reason for heating the water to 100 degrees based on what Tube read in a book - is absolutely wrong. Matt told me over and over again - that I needed to stop using Plaster of Paris and use Hydrocal instead - he also told me over and over again that if I wanted to get these casts done faster I needed to heat my water to 100 degrees - as that will make the set up time faster. I have never seen a box of hydrocal - so I must be telling the truth as DDA said himself - that is the recommended temperature for the water when using Hydrocal, and DDA says very clearly Matt initially started doing this for that very reason. I am not sure why you insist on arguing over this issue. It seems pretty clear to me.

In fact just yesterday - while doing more casting work, I wondered about the humidity level. As I worked I knew it was not 100 degrees - but as I worked and sat here on the internet - I was burning up. So, I checked the weather (Im still not acclimated to Texas temps) and while the temp was only 75 yesterday our humidity level was 87% -- and that is the truth. There is a big difference between dry heat and heat and humidity. Which is why I think the temperature that day on Onion Mountain was probably not 100 degrees - but lower, as I was told this area is very humid, I am trying very hard to get humidity levels for that area but apparently this is going to be difficult. The words you used "100 degrees in the shade" is a very common phrase - and not one I have ever taken as a literal meaning.

DDA is right - I have been involved in this since the Jefferson Conference - Tube noted this as well in one of his posts in the Original Dermal thread. DDA and I were talking - while looking at the Onion Mountain Cast, when I noticed something and I asked him about it. DDA insisted I talk to Dr. Meldrum and Mr. Chilcutt and Matt about this right away --- I insisted I did not. I wanted no part of this. DDA insisted, and eventually I gave up and did infact talk to Dr. Meldrum and Matt about what I was thinking - but it was a hectic night after the conference so the discussion was tabled. Somehow it happened on this forum. That question I had then, still goes unanswered today, even by me. But, I havent given up yet.

Ok folks. Enough of this drama, lets get to work.

Wolftrax brought up the fact that I never did Heat the water in my experiments to 100 degrees - I didnt feel I needed to. He also brought up that I did not do a straight pour into the tracks - I also didnt feel I needed to, as my work was not specifically about the work Matt Crowley had done. But, this is an interesting idea - so I took up the challenge to see if I could duplicate Matts work... Here are the results.

1. Water Heated to 100 Degrees

2. Plaster of Paris mixed thick (just like Matt said to)

3. Plaster poured into the Arch portion of the cast - no splash casting.

3. Air Temperature 75 degrees, Humidity is at 87%

4. Measurement of the Dry Track: 9 inches long by 3 inches wide.

I decided to take Wolftrax up on his challenge. Why not go ahead and test the Theory of Matt Crowley. If these "Artifacts" (which I call "Crowley lines") will happen in the circumstances he has noted - I should see these Crowley lines in this cast. So. The work began

I poured out a pan full of the Onion Mountain Soil -- First off let me tell you, this soil is just as powdery and lightweight as the Tricalcium Phosophate I used in my first set of experiments - but dont let that fool you. Unlike the Tricalcium Phosphate - I could apply my bodyweight to this soil - heck I could stand on one foot and only get to a maximum depth of about 2 inches. I find this curious. It must have something to do with the Clay found in the soil (which is one of a few things Volcanic Ash turns into as it breaks down) But lets be very clear about this - if you took this sample to have it analyzed - it would not come back with a reading that says it is Volcanic Ash - Volcanic Ash breaks down very fast - in as little as 2 years if it is exposed to the elements - I was told even faster, by a Volcanologist currently working on Mt. Saint Helens for the USGS, if that Ash is on the side of a hill - or a Mountain side. I will get into the actual properties of the soil at a later date - as I am waiting for some other very specific information about this soil. I am trying to dot all of my i's and crossing all my t's.

Ok for the pictures. I did exactly what Matt Crowley discusses - and Wolftrax brings up in this thread. My results -- I do have Dermal Ridges and Flexion Creases. While the dermals are very faint they are there. The dermals on a human female are much smaller and more difficult to recover than that of a human male. These casts are of my feet - and I am (I guarantee you) a human female.

Measurement of the track prior to casting:

These numbers remained unchanged in the finished cast - there was no expanision.. I can not account for this. I expected to see some expansion - but I had none.

I was unable to duplicate Matt's work. I did exactly as I was instructed, and I could not do it. I have the feeling it may have everything to do with the casting agent. But, something we need to consider is this. Matt's work for the most part was in Volcanic ash - and Im sure that ash moved much easier under the weight of the casting agent. This soil is not the same - at all. If you look at the full foot cast you will see a depression in the soil (in the arch area) - that is where the casting agent made first contact with the soil - and it abruptly stops. Another thing to consider - soil is not Volcanic Ash. There is a big difference between the two.

My work is still ongoing - and if I can answer any questions I will be more than happy to. I will not guess - or make assumptions. I am not saying this is the final word on anything - and I am open to any and all suggestions. I am not doing this to trash Matt or his work - I just want answers and I want the truth, just as many of you do.

So, I think its pretty safe to say - based on this test: Dermal Ridges and Flexion Creases are possible in the soil from the Logging Road of Onion Mountain. Ok, here are the pictures. I am curious to hear what all of you think.

OOps I forgot one - and its very important.

And also, I did see dermal ridges in the soil itself - I attempted to get pictures of these, but was unable to. In order to actually see these dermals in the soil - I had to look for them. They were not easy to see at all, and if hadnt thought to look - I never would have seen them.

Also, very important to note. If you look at where the dermals are seen on my foot - it becomes very familiar. I have a theory about this. I could see no dermals on my foot that directly impacted the soil. Why, I wondered. My thought is this. Remember this soil is very lightweight and powdery - the bottom of my foot that actually took my full body weight have no dermals shown - while the outer edges that do not take the full weight of my foot - did show dermals.. I found this interesting, as when I did the tests using Tricalcium phosphate - I never applied my full bodyweight - as that would have resulted in my foot going all the way to the pan, thus no track to cast. But simply placing my foot in the substrate was enough to capture dermals and flexion creases.

Now, the soil in this experiment is just as fine and powdery as the Tricalcium Phosphate - are we seeing dermals on the outer edge of my foot for the very same reason as we did with the Tricalcium phosphate? Direct contact wipes them out under the weight of your body - but gentle contact preserves them? It is a very strong possibility. And, if you look at the Onion Mountain Cast - the majority of noted dermals are on the edge. I have to wonder if the arch area of the Onion Mountain didnt come into contact with uneven ground or some obstruction that did not allow the foot or whatever to have full contact with the soil - and that could very well be why we are seeing what appears to be possible dermal ridges near the heel of the Onion Mountain Cast.

Its just a theory - and I hope I explained it well.

You saw no lines crossing out of the casted track onto the over splash edges?

How thick is thick? What ratios of plaster to water are you using? How does that compare to what Matt was using?

No, I saw none. Nothing that even resembled this.



I mixed the way Matt told me to - I did my normal mix 1/3 water to 2/3 plaster of paris, then he told me to add about a handful more and let it sit for about 10 minutes, so it would get good and thick. I did not measure this amount specifically - as Tube never gave me an exact measurement of how much extra he used. He just said a handful.. I am assuming his hands are bigger than mine - so I just let it sit till it was a little thicker than pancake batter. Then I poured.

The rest of my casting will have exact measurements of the P OF P and Water.

Sorry - I was looking at the wrong page of my notebook...

The mixing ratio for Plaster of Paris - is 2 to 1. 2 cups of Plaster to 1 cup of water. The rest of my comment is unchanged. I simply put in another handful of Plaster of Paris.

I was thinking of something else when I typed my first response to you. Sorry about that.

Where'd everybody go?

I thought you'd get a thorough drubbing with this one. I think tube's findings regarding OM are certainly in question, and yes, I'll say it again, I think some of his work has been demolished (I think some of the later stuff self-destructed).

What does Chicutt have to say?

LAL wrote:




Care to back that up with any specifics? And by that I don't mean another generality. :wink:

Tube wasn't replicating conditions at OM as closely as possible. Melissa did, using tube's mix and water temperature and didn't get the same results.

You and John Green debated for days on Coleman's Yahoo forum, didn't you? Wasn't that where Green said he always wondered if those "looping lines around the heel" were casting artifacts? Are these the same concentric half circles we're talking about that could have resulted when the pour apparently flattened ridges in the center?

I was never able to fathom how bounding about at Alki Beach said anything about impressions in clayey sand at Bluff Creek or even a compliant gait in a creature with an IM index of circa 88, but that's a topic for another thread.

Tube started out okay with this:

"Just so we do not get off on the "wrong foot" let me be clear about the scope of these investigations. I am not "debunking" the claims made about all casts that are claimed to have dermal ridges. My scope of investigation has been limited to ONE cast which was made under rather extrordinary conditions. Various other casts such as Paul Freeman's "Wrinkle Foot" or the Elkins cast made in Georgia were made in mud. My tests suggest that this ridge artifact process does not occur in mud. Various other casts are claimed to exhibit dermal ridges. Of those I have no first hand knowledge or opinion, as I have not seen the casts nor do I have any knowledge of the soil conditions under which they were made."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...1337entry231337

My understandng is that tube has had no training in fingerprint analysis.

Chilcutt's drawing from the "chalk talk" is on this page:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...0344entry270344

It is my understanding that Chillcut has no training in Bigfoot anatomy either ...

Maybe you could point us in the direction of someone who does..so we can get this cleared up.

Mike (watch1)

Melissa recently wrote:

You didn't answer the questions.

Well, I didnt think doing this would make me popular -- thats for sure.

My work was never about proving or disproving the theories or work of Matt, simply because I want to know under what conditions these "Artifacts" are possible, and how (if possible) to distinguish between an artifact and dermal ridges or flexion creases. I think for anyone to be stunned by the presence of "Artifacts" is silly to be honest. These things happen.. But, its up to us to figure out why and how it happens.

Fact is - I did exactly what I was challenged to do - and the results - nothing even close to what Matt had. I have a good idea why I didnt achieve the same results as Matt - but I do not know anything for sure yet. But the fact remains - I did what Matt did, and I did not have the same results, and if Matt is right, this should have happened. Period.

Anyone have any good guesses as to why I could not duplicate Matts work? I do.

I'm sorry...were you ever popular!?!* :laugh:




* Notwithstanding high school, of course.

I will have you know - I was NOT popular in high school either :laugh:

wait - that cant be good

Not being popular in high school is, in my book, a point in your favor.

K - then I wont tell you I was a Pon Pom girl :laugh:

Hey, if I learn to build an awesome fire -- will that give me more points??

"I learned the truth at seventeen, that love was meant for beauty queens, those high school girls with clear skin smiles, who married young and then retired.................."-Janis Ian

Because you haven't accurately duplicated one or more of his experimental protocols?

• methods
• materials
• measurements
• conditions

RayG

Well - read back ray - what is the only difference between this experiment and Tubes??? This isnt hard.. And is very likely the reason

Tube didn't use Onion Mountain soil. Is that it?

LAL wrote:





Oh, you were actually serious with those questions.

Ok.




Yes. The one I cleaned his clock on...I remember it well. :wink:





Not sure. But even if he did, why is that pertinent to this discussion? Unless, of course, it's another attempt at a deflection.





Maybe. Oh, wait, speaking of answering questions...you never
answered my question about if you've ever disagreed with anything Meldrum has uttered that you've read. You gave some vague general response. I asked for two specific examples. You didn't even give me one. Hmmm...


Oh...and your link to Chilcutt's drawing at the '05 conference of a flat ridge peak.
I think tube responds nicely to any concerns Chilcutt may have had

tube, at his site, wrote:




LAL also wrote:



Tube has used some Onion Mountain soil in his experiments. Read the site.

Another thing to consider with using "Onion Mountain soil" is that soil components can be different in different places on a mountain.
Was the soil taken exactly where Green made the cast? Wasn't Green's cast done on or very close to a road which would, probably, have less organic material than something back in the woods a bit? After talking to tube, he said there was quite a bit of organic material in the soil....not usually a component of "road" dirt.


http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm

Back in high school, building fires didn't get you any points....... :new_lmaosmiley:





.......and I better be a good boy and leave it at that. :wink:

I gave one example, just not in a reply to you, and I'm not sure I disagree; I'm still mulling it over. I haven't been able to find anything on the possible Homo erectus skull fragment he mentions, but he doesn't say it definitely is, so I can't really disagree. I think it's unlikely. On the other hand, stone tools evidently made by Homo erectus have been found in China, dated to 1.6 mya, so given land bridges and erectus' penchant for travel, who knows? They had plenty of time to get to the New World.

I think reading is quite a bit different than "worshipping at his altar", don't you? Maybe that was supposed to be funny, but I think it would have fallen flat even coming from Don Rickels. Do a search on Meldrum on Idaho State's website; you might be surprised. His collegues may not have liked his subject matter, but he got tenure partly because his methodology is so good. IOW, he knows his stuff. He's no Dr. Franklin Rhuel, and I'm no PhD groupie.

Incidently, you might have used a "perhaps" yourself when you said Freeman fooled him.

You haven't told me who "many" is. And please post pictures showing where Freeman casts are "cartoonish".

Must be some other debate with Green because it looked to me like you were the one with the clean clock. I'll have to look it up. Now, can you help define exactly which area Green was referring to regarding "looping lines"?

Tube ended up concluding everything on that cast is an artifact. I don't think there's any argument there are artifacts on the cast. The question is exactly where.

I don't know how many generations removed this copy is, but even here, the ridges have characteristics of dermal ridges. Note the the V-shaped meeting of the ridges:

LAL wrote:




Please cite the quote. If you can, if we ever meet, I'll rub your feet for an hour. :laugh:





Now look at the photo on the top (left hand side). No dermal ridges were used AT ALL in it's construction. It also has a v-shaped, or delta, marking in it just below the toes on the left.




Below is not one but two of Mr. Freeman's amazing "hand" finds! The footprints are all Freeman-related "finds". You really have no problems at all with the one in the upper left hand corner? Seriously, its outline looks closer to "Wilson" from Castaway than an organically made print. Do you seriously think any of those probably came from a Bigfoot?

Regardless, a copy is a copy, you can't have it both ways. If a copy of the Skookum cast isn't good enough then a copy of the Onion MT. cast can't be either.

The only difference? I see a few. You're sure you used exactly the same methods, materials, measurements, and conditions he did?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great you're attempting to replicate his experiment. :icon14:

RayG

Some of Freeman's stuff is good, some borders on the ridiculous. Some people think he embellished his "finds" to make them easier to cast, I don't know if this is true or speculation.

But he conveniently "found" a whole lot more stuff than the average bf researcher actively looking for tracks.

Krantz seemed to think he was the real deal.

Now, Yetifan - you know I think the world of you, and yes I see what your talking about. But - how did it happen? I have no issues with whether or not it can happen - but how Tube managed to create these "Artifacts" I still dont know. While I think its important for people to understand "Artifacts" can happen - they also need to know HOW artifacts can and do happen. Tube never really went into this.

Anyone can make anything happen - depends on how bad you want to make it happen. And, just because Tube showed its possible to create artifacts in Volcanic Ash - that doesnt mean it will happen under the same conditions he used -- in any substrate. Tubes work spoke directly to the Onion Mountain Cast - regardless how you slice it - so, why didnt I get the same results he did, using the 100 degree water, thick plaster mix and straight pour - using the soil from Onion Mountain? Im still scratching my head over that..

Do you not think answering these questions are just as important, if one is objective?

I never said I used the exact same materials - remember ray - this is about the Onion Mountain Cast.. Thats what many are just not understanding.

The soil on Onion Mountain has NO volcanic ash... What did tube use for his casting experiments? Volcanic Ash. Tube also used Hydrocal - I used Plaster of Paris, which by the way is what was used to cast the Onion Mountain Tracks... In all honesty ray - Im confused as to why no one ever questioned the use of Volcanic Ash to either prove or disprove the dermals in this specific cast. While the soil conditions were not easy to come by - the information is out there.

Measurements? Did I miss a post where Tube measured out his Hydrocal and water? Tube told me specifically to mix my plaster of paris (when he stopped telling me to not use plaster of paris) a little thicker than pancake batter - then let it sit for about 10 mins. Now, hydrocal and Plaster of Paris are two totally different animals - so I had no choice but to approximate. I cant tell you how many buckets I have been though because the plaster of paris set up too fast - :laugh:

I appreciate your kind words ray - I really do, and I hope you do not mistake my words for attitude. I do think this is something that should be talked out - to be honest. Because I have read that Dermal thread more times than I care to count, and I still do not know under what conditions and what circumstances must be present in order for these "Artifacts" to happen. That is something that really needs to be answered. Is it a mixing problem? If so, how to we prevent it in the future? Is it a soil issue? If so, what soils do we need to be aware of this issue with? If we have a track in a soil (and we know its a great soil for artifacts) how do we cast and keep those artifacts to a minimum? What is the optimum temperature for the water to be used for mixing the casting agent? Those are the questions I want answered.

Personally I think it boils down to a couple factors - he used Hydrocal with water heated to 100 degrees, knowing full well this would infact create "Artifacts". He used Volcanic Ash - whats the difference between Volcanic Ash and the soil at Onion Mountain - I can tell you quite a bit.

Yes, before this is over - I expect standard bigfooting equipment to include measuring cups !! :laugh: (kidding).

WOW - do you know how much trouble a comment exactly like THAT got me into?

But I do agree with you. I do believe their is some value in using the Onion Mountain Cast copies - as they are representative of what Mr. Green said he did see, AND more than that - there are other casts which exhibit the same characteristics. I always wondered why that is - when we see this happening in different geographical locations -- that is important when you factor in weather conditions etc. Its the dermals and artifacts I am interested in - how and why.

My work in relation to the Onion Mountain Cast was simply to find out IF Dermal Ridges or Flexion creases are possible in that specific type of soil - and I have my answer.. But - my work is still ongoing..

AND - I agree with you - when the whereabouts of the original are known, then you should always go with the original, which is big reason why I do not agree with the work done on the skookum cast copies.

This is very significant, IMO. If Tube was able to create artifacts using material that was not used when casting the OM tracks and if his technique was significantly different than that used by Green when casting them (i.e., the temperature of the water), then I think Melissa's findings are important. This takes nothing away from Tube's work regarding the possibility that, under certain conditions and with certain materials, dermals could be simulated. However, I don't think that until someone finds false dermals after doing what Mel did here - namely, reproduce the OM conditions as closely as possible - we can discount what's on those casts.

Remember, I'm talking about the Onion Mountain casts here. Nothing else. Tube's work clearly shows that false dermals are possible. I'm just saying his work (due to his methodology) does not show that the Onion Mountain dermals are false.

The copy isn't painted and there's no hair flow involved. The "original" OM cast being questioned is a copy. The original cast made by John Green was lost.

The same kind of V-shaped meeting can be seen here (not from Onion Mountain):





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

I totally agree with you Bipto - and I think its important others understand this as well. Knowing that Artifacts are possible is VERY important - which is why I liked the work done by tube.. My work is not about discrediting or proving him wrong, as its my opinion Artifacts are possible -- I just wanna know why and how they happen.

Tubes work also showed something else - which I think could be an indicator for what could be looked for as a possible hoax.. but more on that when I get my work done. Like I said in a previous post - I dont want to guess, or assume anything.

In my opinion the Onion Mountain Cast is still in play as a cast that may show Dermal Ridge patterns.

So, are you saying that you think Matt only came forward with his findings after he found the materials and casting conditions that it would take to create these artifacts?

I always got the impression that Matt was only experimenting to find out if so called dermal ridges could be, or possibly had been, confused with casting artifacts. I'm confused now that you are bringing in the fact that he didn't use the exact substrate material, casting material or conditions that John Green used to cast the original OM cast. It seems that Tube's entire experiment is being questioned because he didn't do this. Is that correct?

Thanks.

Oops, I just saw that we were posting at the same time. I am going to leave this up, but I understand better after reading your last post just what you meant by what I quoted here.

"Oh, you mean the footprints made by a guy that Byrne, Dahinden, Green and countless others have never given hardly any credence to, due to his incredible "luck" at finding "evidence"? Plus the fact that the prints are so morphologically different from other alleged Bigfoot prints as to be viewed as laughable by many. If the film was a hoax it would have been incredibly easy to have planted them for HIMSELF to video. But since Meldrum, He at whose altar you worship constantly, bought the footprints lock, stock and barrel, they, therefore, are likely real? Lu, you really crack me up. Speaking of Meldrum, have you ever disagreed with anything he has said or written...besides grammatical errors?"

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=16452&st=0

(Bipto, was some of that beyond posting guidelines? Just curious.)

Not a direct quote, but the meaning seems clear.

Are you suggesting Freeman somehow got into the muddy field and faked a line of forty prints just prior to Meldrum's unexpected visit? Meldrum was suspicious (pg. 23) at first. See the full story in the book. Part of it is here:

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

They found more prints that Freeman evidently hadn't found after they'd taken their leave of him and returned to make casts.

I'm told Wes Summerlin cast a hand print; are we sure who cast what? There's one where the fingers look pointy because mud was filling in the impressions (good photo in Murphy's book). Meldrum compares a Freeman cast to a muddy handprint found on a house in California (pg. 108).

Did you grab the wrong photo by mistake(lower foot cast)? That's not a Freeman cast. The photo looks identical to the one I posted. Is the upper one part of Wrinkle Foot right?

Again, who's this "many"?

Brian Smith said he embellished real prints to make them better for casting. That's not hoaxing, that's just..........dumb. This could be the explanation for the dermals Dahinden found under debris in the prints Freeman showed him (that led to the famous "village idiot" remark). I don't know of any photos or casts from that trackway.

He moved to be near a "hot spot" and went out as often as he could. With activity in the area, I would think he'd find something. Smith said he's found evidence in the same area.

Not only Krantz but his fingerprint experts thought the casts were the real deal.

Seen this?

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/somer87.htm

LAL, quoting me, posted:




Sorry Lu, but me claiming that Meldrum has "bought the footprints lock, stock and barrel" is not exactly the same (syntactically and semantically) as saying (quoting you) that "Freeman fooled him". Someone can believe in something "lock, stock and barrel" and not be fooled. Do I think it's highly likely Meldrum has been fooled? Yes. Sorry, no foot rub.






Wow. Yeah, there's NO WAY Freeman could have done that. :new_whistle: Your above quote presumes that if, indeed, Freeman was a hoaxer, Meldrum was his only target. He showed many of his "finds" to other researchers and, indeed, it's possible anyone else who was willing to listen to him.

Hi--all this is over my head, but I want to toss in something that might be relevant, even though you folks have probably taken it into consideration:

If the dirt taken now from Onion Mtn. isn't the same pulverized road dust, that may be the differentiating factor.

If I remember correctly, the tracks we're talking about demonstrated evidence of toe flex and midtarsal break. If Freeman hoaxed them, then maybe we should figure out where he was in October, 1967.

Say, Freeman was over 6'4" and 250 lbs! :wink:

Hi RogerKni - Thats pretty much what it is to be honest. Its very light and powdery - but it holds up under bodyweight. I spoke with the folks who completed the last soil survey (the year before the cast was made) and I was told the same rocks being put up there then, are the same kind of rocks they use on these roads today.

I can see why Tube thought this soil would be comparable to Volcanic Ash (given it being so lightweight etc.)-but it just is not. I will have to post some pictures of this soil.

Melissa wrote:




And then RogerKni wrote:




I talked to tube last night and he informed me that the Onion Mt. dirt he was provided with from Kathy M. had lots of organic material in it. I would hope this was also the case with Melissa's dirt since, I assume, they were taken from the same spot. Tube said that he didn't get any casting artifacts with the dirt provided, same as Melissa. It's my understanding that Green's casting of the now-famed Onion Mt. cast was on or near a road which, as Roger alludes to above, could very well be quite different compositionally. Meaning...less organic material and more "pulverized road dust".

However, tube makes this point at his website...





In other words, apparently, when you cast with Plaster of Paris in dirt with organic material in it stuff sticks to it and no "ridge-like" casting artifacts will emerge. If Green had cast that print in similar soil that would have happened as well. It didn't, since the copies of the original don't show any such properties. Therefore, probably not the same type of dirt. God, I have a headache. :laugh:


Anyway, hats off to both Melissa and tube in their efforts. Great to see some actual experimentation going on.

Regarding the Onion Mountain soil - it was taken from the Onion Mountain road and I seriously doubt it was from the exact same spot as where John Green found the prints, but geologically on that road, it's the same soil. When John Green was there, the road had either been freshly graded or had some construction work on it (there are two different recollections). Regardless, the road was very powdery and fine, with few "visible" organics. The Onion Mountain soil sent to tube and Melissa was taken by scraping the fine powdery soil from the surface of the road. That soil contained some pine needles and leaves. However, since all soil is a combination of pulverized rock and decayed organic material (forest litter), and the Forest Service soil guide shows the same soil types for that entire area, I do not believe there is any difference between then and now, laterally or horizontially. A simple screening of the soil will remove large particles, which is what I instructed both tube and Melissa to do.

So back to the experiments.... There are two issues here.

1. Are the dermal ridges on the Onion Mountain cast, casting artifacts or dermal ridges of an unknown primate?

2. Can dermal ridges be created by casting artifacts?

The answer to number 2 is yes, they can. What we don't know is how and under what conditions they occur and what their frequency is (does it only occur with plaster or 100 degree water or when Venus and Mars are aligned just right...).

Since Matt did not recreate the conditions under which John Green took the Onion Mountain Casts, his experiments do not YET suggest that the those dermals are casting artifacts. What Melissa is doing is outstanding...she has not produced casting artifacts using John Green's methods OR tubes methods. Can those dermals still be casting artifacts? Sure, but again, we do not know the mechanizisms of when/how they occur. More work is needed.

Thanks HM, nice post!

Hi all. Here's a possibility: Was the Onion Mtn. road recently created in 1967? If so, the bulldozer would (or might) have dug down beneath the topsoil to create the covering on the road, reducing the percentage of organic material in it, and making it more ash-like (after pulverization) than it would be today.

Were forest roads ballasted with gravel back then the way they are now? WillinYC has told me offline that they weren't, usually.

Were there any needles showing in the photos Green et al. took? If not, that is another small nick in the organics theory.

The bottom pics are a good example of what I posted here:



I have this cast as well, and the dermals seen in this are speculated by some to be Freeman's own fingerprints, as he was "preparing" the tracks to cast. Maybe Chilcutt needs to get some of Freeman's prints, and compare them to the suspect dermals in this cast, to see if there is a close resemblance?

Krantz held this cast up as "THE cast" as proof for himself.

Matt and Melissa did good work, but as DDA was trying to point out, there are so many factors present, in any given day, that could do any number of things to a cast as it is being poured.

You can go back to that exact same spot (if you could be sure) and get the dirt, but almost 40 years has passed since the original was made, and the soil could have changed a lot in its composition since that time.

Can you set up a situation where you can get "artifacts" from the soil sample today? I'm sure.

Can you pull dermals out of the very same soil sample using a human foot print? I'm sure.

I think it's great that Matt and Melissa both are experimenting with this, and I'm not trying to belittle anything they have done. Just IMO, both are possible.

I think my paraphrase was accurate enough. I don't want you rubbing my feet, thanks.




I was referring specifically to photos you posted. Those were examined by a specialist in primate foot anatomy with another witness present. They found Freeman's prints from that morning indicating he had merely walked alongside the trackway, pausing at times to inspect. Meldrum found articulating toe prints, half tracks and even faint dermal ridges that disappeared rapidly in the wet conditions.

Wow. You think Freeman was capable of faking all that? He downplayed the trackway saying he'd seen much better ones. He routinely drove the muddy roads as early in the year as he could. I thought you were reading the book. Not up to page 25 yet?

You seem to be avoiding my question. Who are these "many"?

Should he be exhumed? There were other rangers casting prints:

"Other Forest Service personnel from the Walla Walla Ranger District Office in Walla Walla, Washington (where Freeman was employed), were called to the scene that day, and they observed many apparent footprints that were consistent with an animal of that description. Many photographs were taken, and a plaster cast was made of one of these impressions (Fig. 1, right). The following day, a search and rescue team on an unrelated mission came upon the scene, took more photographs, made another cast (Fig. 2), and, attempted to track the creature. One week later, on June 17, Freeman and, other foresters encountered more footprints a few miles away, at a place called Elk Wallow, this time of two individuals. One of these sets of tracks matched the tracks at the sighting location, and a third cast was made (Fig 1, left). The second individual left slightly different tracks, and three casts were made of these (Figs. 3 and 4). The analysis in this article centers on these three new tracks (made by the second individual) from Elk Wallow, in the Mill Creek Watershed. (For more background information, see ISC Newsletter [1982a])



Fig. 1 — Two footprint casts made by Forest Service personnel of the animal reportedly seen by Paul Freeman. Both are imprints of the same left foot. The cast on the right was made on the day of the sighting, June 10, 1982. The cast on the left was made at Elk Wallow one week later, where it was accompanied by tracks of the prime (second) individual.

During the following winter, Freeman and other investigators found additional tracks on several occasions. They made more plaster casts indicating the existence of at least two more individuals. In all, 11 casts of four distinguishable types have been made. Five of these casts were made by Forest Service workers in June of 1982, and the originals are still in my possession, pending their ultimate disposition. One made by Art Snow of the search and rescue team, and five more made by Paul Freeman himself, have been copied with latex or Silastic molds and returned to their owners."

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