Since no one has mentioned it, I thought I would.

Skeptical Inquirer for May/June 2007 (p58) has a 4 part reviow of Dr. Jeff Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. I have a blog posting under construction about it, and thought I'd get people's reactions to it here. Have you read th review, and what do you think?

Read it. Liked it. Was the SI piece written by Radford? Post a link to you blog entry when you're done!

Benjamin Radford was one of the four who wrote about the book. It being their essays that make up the review.

Radford's one of the reasons I won't subsribe to SI.

Who are the others?

I've got three more parts to do before the posting is ready. You'll learn the names when it's up.

(Aint I manipulative? )

I can wait, or borrow the issue from a friend, whichever comes soonest. (I'm sure he won't miss the opportunity to thrust it at me. He photocopied Korff and Kocis' article. Even Dennett took exception to that one.)

Part three is done, two more to go. It covers Michael R. Dennett's contribution. As of now the posting in progress covers about 5+ pages. It may even be a long one.

Ew...that wouldn't be much fun to write a book and have SI conduct a four part review of it. I'm way too sensitive and I'd be crushed if Ben Radford dissed me....sniff....

Read all four pieces of the Vol. 13, No. 3 May/June SI article. It is horrendous. The only one who made any sense was Michael Dennett. Ben's was a gloss over with no substance. Matt's was convoluted and very hard to follow and Daegling's came out as bitter and defensive. Ben's piece is the only one really about the book while the others seem to just pick on what they think is their expertise.

The original thought behind this book was as a companion piece for the DVD of the same name. If Dr. Meldrum was going to do a book on just his work I think it would have been to a much greater depth and not have covered as many topics as did the TV special for Discovery. As it is I think it is fine for its intended purpose, the book that is.

Of course Ben did mention that Jeff left out "a thorough and devastating analysis by Anton Wroblewski..." (). I was not aware of this analysis. I had heard that he was planning on publishing something but haven't seen anything since. All I know is that the man declined to go on national TV being interviewed on his interpretation of the Skookum Cast. Ben did fail to mention that Jeff also did not include all the material that Owen Caddy produced from first hand experience with the original cast and not just an art piece depicting it. Remember that this was planned as a companion piece and that material wasn't existing then.

Anton, if people would care to look for his postings here, claimed that the cast was made undoubtedly by an elk. He failed to produce any original information proving this assertion except for some pictures of elk that he obtained from the internet. Apparently he has not seen an elk in the flesh. Anton is a scientist who looks at animal tracings and determines things from them, what I don't really know since most of his work as really been about worms and he currently works in the oil industry.

He was offered an all-expense paid trip to the Seattle area to view the original cast in person and interview myself but declined stating he had seen enough with the art piece shown at a Texas museum recently. Art really is in the eye of the beholder.

I have been working on the Texas Bigfoot Conference DVD set where Dr. Meldrum goes into great lengths about the mid-tarsal break and for some one like Daegling to claim that this feature is not seen in any other non-human primate floored me. He then goes on to claim that the Pacific Northwest is just full of fossil evidence from the past but not of something like Gigantopithecus. How many Giganto pieces does he think exists anyways? How many short faced cave bear fossils do we have? Given the current populations on similar animals (gorillas to bears) I would say a lot more than there were of Giganto. There were apparently two corridors open during the ice ages here in North America. One was in the midwest and the other was along our western coast line. That coast line was then above water and so anyplace along there would now be underwater. This has proven out with the cave systems being explored in S.E. Alaska where a few bear skeletons are coming to light.

I would go on but mythusmage is going to go into a lot more depth and I don't want to supersede his posting. I just felt I needed to get some of this off my chest. Sorry.

I started reading the articles, and the snarky and defensive tone just turned me off. This is what passes for skepticism these days? I can remember when SI was impartial, and didn't take cheap pot shots. I even remember one article that had an admiration for any serious BF researcher who wasn't wide-eyed and gullible.
Honestly, I think Carl Sagan would be ashamed of the magazine these days.
I'm a pretty dyed in the wool skeptic, but jeering and negativity is not skepticism. 4 different guys to try and refute Meldrum's book, but none of them have anything of substance of their own to show, and it seemed any sort of evidence that was offered was second hand.
Gee, back in the day, I remember the author of the article refuting the mysticism of walking through hot coals actually took his socks off AND WALKED THROUGH THE DAMN COALS!

Didn't one of that crowd diss the whole idea of sasquatches in NA traditions?

Oh, you may be in for it..............................

Just how did they know about this "thorough and devastating analysis" (he hasn't published yet that I know of)? Wasn't all that after Jeff's book was written? Colobus started his thread in July after DY started one and I got the book the day after it was released in September.

Cliff Crook was claiming it's an elk lay long before that and Daegling seemed to take it seriously in his book (which Jeff reviewed). Jeff addressed the possibly of an elk lay in the book and explained how it was ruled out. What more did they want?

The essay. (Warning:Long)

Wow. I'll have a lot to say later, but just one small point for now: Paul Freeman is dead.

Could you clarify on what Meldrum disagreed with Chilcutt about? I don't remember that.

Also, OM is a copy. The original was apparently lost in a move. John Green considered it a poor cast and always thought it could have artifacts.

The characteristics Jimmy talked about have nothing to do with possible pouring lines near the heel or around the edge of the ball and the sides. Jimmy Chillcutt stands by his findings. He examined Dr. Meldrum's collection for three days (Crowley looked in a drawer) and took some home with him for further study. Crowley has had no training in fingerprinting. Chilcutt is not only an expert, he's the only expert on ape prints.


Gotta go cool off now.

The cast Anton examined was made from a mold of the original cast, correct? A copy of the cast, just like the OM cast Chilcutt examined.


Images were shown of artifact test casts and the OM cast and they matched, though you disagree you have yet to show any differences.



I'd ask you for a source but it's not necesary, I was one of four people there (Meldrum, Crowley, my daughter and myself) on the day Matt examined those casts. Matt's examination wasn't "Looking in a drawer", any more than Chilcutt's was. Meldrum keeps his casts in drawers, Matt pulled them out of the drawer and examined them on melrum's work table for a couple of hours. He measured the lines with a loup, and took high resolution photographs. Not to mention he'd been studying a copy of the cast as well as experimenting with casting artifacts for more than a year previous to that day. Now, you can compare Matt's couple of hours against Chilcutt's 3 days, but the fact of the matter is it takes only a few minutes to see that CA-20, from the same trackway as CA-19, obviously exhibits casting artifacts, and proves that the substrate the casts were made in produces casting artifacts. Attached are photos of CA-20:
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment




Expertise is of no importance when a comparison shows a match of the OM casts lines and the artifact test casts lines, yet no match between that of the OM casts and apes or humans. The proof is in the evidence.

Makes it even more disturbing, don't it.



The relevant bit is...



Dennet then goes on to say...



So, according to Dennett you can't agree with somebody about the overall picture, and disagree about details. Let's repeat it one more time. A foolish consistency...



One of the perils of research. You won't always have access to the best material, all you can do is hope that it is good enough.



Well, if Crowley ever shows up in this thread I have this question for him. How do you get casting artifacts to faithfully imitate dermal ridges, considering how casting artifacts usually come about?

Wolftrax,

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Which is, you can't have dermal ridges and casting artifacts at the same time. It's either one or the other. Is this correct?

Now, what was your attitude going to examine the cast.? Was it to see what you would see? Or were you expecting to see what you now claim you saw? Were you going there as a scientist, or an advocate? Did Crowly tell you what expected to see? If he did, were his finding consistent with what he expected to find? Did he express any intention to modify his stance should the evidence point to a conclusion contrary to his position?

Were you there to learn, or there to reinforce your beliefs?

The casting artifact tests revealed the lines in the same pattern as that said to be dermal ridges in CA-19. It followed the same pattern and the same shape. This pattern is not seen in apes or humans, but in the artifact tests, it is a match.

As for motivations, I had no preconceived notions about what I would find, in fact I was actually there to discuss other things with Dr. Meldrum concerning hominid and sasquatch morphology, but seeing CA-20 as shown in the post above, the evidence speaks for itself.

Made by BC artists, 60% of the hair flow is gone, the measurements no longer match and it was painted. That's quite different from a copy of a small cast.

Click to view attachment

Photo of the copy

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

(Rick Noll's clear photo of the original from Meet The Sasquatch by Chris Murphy - much better in the book. Okay to post it, Rick?)

According to Anton, this is an elk knee. The dermatoglyphics that are consistant with other casts are misidentified hair.

Click to view attachment



I posted the best pictures I have, did I not? You have yet to show the characteristics on the ball.



My source was Matt on a message board. I stand corrected; he also looked at them on a worktable. (I knew that would bring you here and, yes, I knew you were there. )



Tests were done in Jeff's lab, right, concerning the flattened area that was thought to be caused by pouring? You named the student. The idea that that cast has artifacts is hardly new (nearly 40 years old, in fact). All, including Krantz, thought there were only pouring artifacts until Jimmy Chilcutt saw something more.

As I recall you sternly admonished me for challenging people who are much younger than I am and who have accomplished more (I assume you meant academically), but now expertise is of no importance.

Noted.

Chilcutt has not dismissed that cast (as of February 13th, this year). The toe area was "touched" or even "touched up", but the flow pattern on the rest of the cast was consistant with others. He was very clear about that on the WCS 2003 DVD.



Check his posts here and his website. He used a product that's mostly silica; it's a dessicant. Later he used compacted river bank soil he obtained from the Duwamish river and pumice from Seattle Pottery, which he called volcanic ash. It was assumed they were caused by the plaster setting up too soon because of the hot dry conditions, so he dubbed them "dessication ridges".

The lines didn't appear in Onion Mountain soil. OM soil is essentially devoid of volcanic ash and silica, according to soil scientists Melissa Hovey contacted.

Anton chimed in on that one, too.

If Matt's doing requests, I want to see this:



http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/elkins.html

This one was in mud.

casted by BC artists, and exactly how far off are the measurements?


I did show it:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=372608
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=372609
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=374641
And while you're comparing those to CA-19, notice how the lines from the ball will fluidly flow across the toes where the stem of the toes or morphology doesn't show, instead it follows the shape of the substrate.




Lal, I knew when you apologized to me concerning that incident and asked for a truce you wouldn't keep your word, and here's the proof. I told you then, and saying it now, it's very sad when a person cannot focus on the evidence, has nothing in the way of supporting their case, and so must resort to mocking their debate opponents history and experience. I have not done that here and don't need to or desire to. The evidence speaks for itself.



The substrate the casts were made in is unknown, CA-20 supports that the casts were made in substrate that produced casting artifacts as shown here:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=385431

Apologize for that incident? You insulted me. Someone called me and told me not to post, so I left the thread. It got three warnings that I saw. Shall I post the link?

I apologized via PM for what I said about your Patty pic on another board and you didn't respond. Evidently there's been no truce.

Are you saying I resort to mockery? I told the truth. It's on Matt's website as well as in his posts.

I certainly focus on the evidence and back up my stuff as much as I can. Why do you think I bought all those books and DVDs, upgraded my computer, bought a new scanner and a couple of casts and find myself posting at 5:16 in the morning?

I just don't happen to be on the Daegling/Dennett/Radford/Crowley bandwagon.

I used to love SI, and I still agree with most of what they print, but when it comes to the BF phenomenon they seem to be on a vendetta. Dennett stated he fabricated the identitity of the Indiana hoaxer (with his editor's permission) on this board and now he's apparently misrepresenting Jimmy Chilcutt's position on the cast with human dermal ridges in the toe(s).

Presumably, it's one of these:

"On June 10, 1982, U.S. Forest Service patrolman Paul Freeman was surveying elk in the Umatilla National Forest, on the border of Washington and Oregon states. That morning, he reported seeing at relatively close range an animal of human shape, hair covered, standing about 2.5 m tall, with an estimated weight of 400 kg. This event is typical of the hundreds of descriptions of encounters with the supposed but unverified Sasquatch. 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.

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

Anyone for letters to the editor?



Those pictures do not show the characteristics.

LAL & Wolftrax - I'm going to say this once, and once only - Drop It!

Whatever arguments you are having, do not continue to bicker on this forum or you will both be suspended for whatever length of time I feel is appropriate, and given that I have worked every weekend so far this year, have hardly seen my kids since their last birthday, and was working until 2am this morning before getting back into the office at 8am, who knows how long that suspension might be - I'm in a really foul mood today!

I don't care who is at fault - please kiss and make up - it is getting really tiresome watching you two fight like this.


For the good of the forum, please stop it and start being constructive again - you are both highly respected members of this forum - I shouldn't have to break up fights like this.

Thank you Paul.

Me too. Thanks, Paul. I had no business being up late last night in the first place; I'm supposed to be in bed with four pillows under my foot. I apologize for my part in this.

So, if a trait does not appear in close relatives, it cannot appear in the subject.

BTW, note your words, "...revealed the lines in the same pattern as that said to be..." How is it that casting artifacts can replicate a feature found on another specimen? I realize it's not impossible, but an accident recreating an earlier event stretches coincidence a tad too strenuously.

One of the hallmarks of science is repeatability. Can you get the same results consistently whenever the experiment is performed? What we have here are two different casting exhibiting the same traits, namely possible dermal ridges/casting artifacts. If they are casting artifacts, which arise depending on conditions, why do they so closely resemble each other? Why do they both closely resemble dermal ridges, footprints, as found in humans and apes?

mythusmage, start here:
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...t=0&start=0
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=369800

This page shows a great closeup of that 90 degree angle of the flow pattern across the ball of the foot:
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/Ridge%20Flow%20Pattern.htm

Click to view attachment

I am sorry but I see a distinct difference between those two pictures. Superficially they might resemble one another to some but they are strikingly dissimilar to me. The Elkin Creek cast exhibit on the left has all the ridges flattened along the top as if made with squishy soft tissue of some type where as the experimental casting on the left looks more like interference wave forms with almost breaking crests, and the change up to thicker crest lines is abrupt, not gradual as in the left hand picture.

These casting artifacts are very precise along all the edges and not fractual as in the Elkin creek; notice the almost cauliflower edges on Elkin Creek. This effect can also be seen in Wrinkle Foot.

Without knowing what is being talked about and just looking at these two pictures don’t you see that one looks organically made and the other looks chemically or maybe mechanical in nature?

I was also going to add... does anyone know who made the originals CA 19 and CA 20. John Green never mentioned that he casted two right feet of the same individual with those surface features on them. Was it the same person? If it wasn't that could be a potential problem concerning these features. The same individual could have casted two tracks almost side by side with the same substrate, with the same plaster mix... but maybe not since it also looks like there was a shortage of plaster in one at least and a new batch was made and poured in to fill.

There were about half a dozen people who were looky luing the tracks and made their own casts while John was there. John took down the names but cannot find that list any longer. What might those casts look like?

And then we have John's statement that I am sure everyone has heard, but seems to get left out in discussions and writings by Matt... namely John looked at one of the tracks and saw distinct lines, not a single line but lines running in groves, parallel to one another, swirling around in the dusty track. He though "Oh No! It looks like someone made this with a wooden foot." He said they cast that as well. He saw the lines with oblique lighting from a flashlight at night.

DDA- I was really just stirring the pot rather than trying to imply much about the Elkin Creek cast. I don't pretend to know a whole lot about dermatoglyphics... though I've been dabbling a little, partially under Jimmy's tutelage. I'm certainly not trying to question his expertise or conclusion on this or any other cast. I was just trying to show that ending ridges, short ridges, and bifurcations (as best as I understand them) do indeed occur as artifacts as demonstrated by Matt's work.

But...I've always been somewhat unsettled by the apparent ridges on this cast, or images I've seen of it. At least for the lower section "Area B" as shown in the image I posted. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I can't really find anywhere on my body that has such a broken pattern as we see in most of area B. My uneducated eyes always thought the other casts (e.g. Blue Creek Mtn Road/CA-19) were more convincing, even if I was never really happy with them, but (like the Skookum cast to me now) the more skeptical eye of someone else made me take a closer look and left me really unimpressed (Skookum cast), if not wholly unconvinced (ridges on CA-19). I agree that the two images I put together earlier are quite different, but- the opposite of you- Matt's ridges seem somehow more...organic? natural?...to me than the EC cast ridges (in this area), but neither strike me as truly natural or organic, so I agree with you on that count and I do understand what you are saying. The artifact section I cropped is as you described, but it had the elements LAL asked for.

Again, everyone, please don't get me wrong, I'm NOT questioning anyone's conclusions or trying to shed any doubt on this cast. I've never seen any more than the poor Q images on the web and I find Chilcutt's analysis to be very compelling. I think these animals most likely exist, if so then they are most likely primates, and that their tracks have probably been cast; therefore there is every reason to assume that legitimate dermal ridges have been captured. But I'm not sure anyone has yet conclusively demonstrated that, at least not to the general satisfaction of the scientific community (guess that's a no brainer statement!).

Apeman

Oh, then you haven't seen my feet in between pedicures - lmao.

Picture B does (to me) look like a dry skin patch that was able to be casted. Im not even sure how these two pictures can be compared. While the artifacts being compared to Picture B are small, they do not resemble what was is being shown in Picture B at all..

I just don't see the similarity at all.

Not sure if I'm stupid, you're not looking hard enough, or are just trying to be difficult, but, if I'm correctly seeing what I think Chilcutt was highlighting, I can't do much better than this for illustration....

Click to view attachment

Again, NOT saying they are identical, just that the elements themselves- as best as I understand them- are present in the artifacts. To reiterate, I suspect the EC casts probably do show areas of real ridges, but not based on solely on THIS frame, which is what I understood LAL to be asking for.

I think I'm going to go back to being quiet for a few weeks...

Or, maybe I am misunderstanding something - could it be that simple?

Well, I don't think I'm being difficult, but I can't see it either! They don't look at all similar to me. The casting artifacts look like sand dunes (wind action) and the other (B?) looks like a rough surface. Just my 2 cents...

Are there multiple casts that have the same dermal patterns? (You know, a positive ID of the same individual making more than one track.)

How about, as HarryHenderson's been hinting, any recent tracks with good dermal patterns?

Hashing and re-hashing decades-old single casts with unverified dermals (whether they look like sand dunes, canals on Mars, or whatever) doesn't seem to be getting anyone anywhere.

RayG

I, for one, would like to see a proper written analysis by Mr. Chilcutt that could be peer reviewed.
I mean no disrespect for Mr. Chilcutt or his findings - but it seems that the best way to test his conclusions would be for him to document - in detail - the who's, how's, what's, where's, and the why's of his work and his findings.
I cannot understand how a person who is firm in their convictions would not already have done so. He is used to documenting such evidence for court - so I would think that he could easily do the same for this.
Please do not tell me that giving presentations at symposiums is the same - because it most assuredly is not!
Without such a paper - we are all tilting at windmills -IMHO.

Again - I would like to point out that I mean this in no way as a personal criticism of Mr. Chilcutt. His credentials speak for themselves and I do not doubt his ability or integrity in any way, shape or form.

That would be cool, though I imagine it is very difficult to have a paper about "bigfoot"-anything published by a respectable journal.

Apeman – I have seen patterns like that after taking off a band aid from one of my fingers or on my foot. The band aid had been on for awhile and retained moisture from somewhere; washing most likely. I think the dermal ridges actually absorbed the moisture and puffed up like in this picture. Some areas looked like it absorbed more moisture than others and looked broken up. I think I have also seen the pattern thru a latex glove on my hand after moisture got inside of it for a while.

To me the Elkins creek cast looks more organic and Matt’s example looks mechanical (surfed up beach front, etc.). Now this might lead some to the thought that well the Elkins cast could have real dermals on it in spots, as if some used their ungloved fingers to work it a bit before casting. Possible… that WOULD be Jimmy’s expertise. He has never said anything to me about that might being the case though. He has seen that problem before though; human prints in an alleged Bigfoot cast.

I also have wondered if someone might have used gloves with friction ridges on them (yes they sell them that way, we have some here at my work and I have seen them in stores for sale) and either accidentally or on purpose splashed them with a chemical (likely kerosene) which would have enlarged and distorted these artificial ridges. Sorry, that was a long sentence.

If someone were to impress leather into a suitable substrate and then cast the surface and do the same with Naugahyde do you think a difference would be evident? Could you tell which was made from real leather? I kind of found it fitting to use this substance as an example seeing that there is controversy about there actually being an animal called a Nauga. I don’t think anyone could tell the difference which brings us to the point of what John Green has preached from the beginning… that these casts are not the feet of Sasquatch, just mere representations of impressions in the ground.

Another thought here with the leather stuff. Moccasins… they have a skin-like surface and if someone hollowed out a rear bear paw and used this to slip over the front of a moccasin… hmmmm.

Anyway… I would assume that given the desire Man can just about do or appear to do anything when it comes to making something that looks like something else. In fact that might just be a discriminating attribute of Mankind… TOOLMAKER? Ha! Maybe Moore like charlatan. An obscure reference.

Are you saying that you have seen the end result from DesertYeti? Or just what he posted here?

Nope, still waiting but not holding my breath. I'll email you about this and some other things...

AM

I thought, maybe based on your reply Apeman, that I had misunderstood something - but if the picture I am posting here is the one this discussion is about comparing Mr. Chilcutt's work, is the correct one and beside that is work done by Tube... Then I am positive I am talking about the same thing.



This part of my comment, was the only part directed to you, and was meant to be funny.. I fell short of that mark.



This part is my opinion of this. Its my personal opinion, it was not directed to you to be difficult or mean, I'm not sure why my personal opinion makes me more difficult than anyone else who also agrees there is little to no similarity. For the sake of argument (and clarity) lets call the photo of Tubes work - "Picture A" and the other one "Picture B".

I agree with HairyMan. The artifacts created by Tube (Picture A) look like blown sand - for all I know this could be a picture taken in the Sahara Desert.. Picture B shows what I would expect if I were looking at skin - the area is not smooth, it has hard edges and it actually looks like skin.

I do see the parts you are pointing out, yes - there is some similarity - but not enough to make me sit up and say "Oh wow, he did it". I also know you did not post this as a way of saying this was a slam dunk, or anything close to that.

All I am saying is this - I am not an expert in Dermal ridges etc. I have never claimed to be - but if I can look at this picture and without reading all the comments, and know that one of those pictures are man made artifacts, then the mark was not hit.

Close enough has never been good enough for me, and it never will be. I'm sure you feel the same way. I am sorry if you felt my comments were solely directed at you - they were not.

I thought Chilcutt originally stated the difference between the artifacts that Matt was getting and the ridges in CA-19 was that the ridges in CA-19 had rounded tops, and Matt's had flat tops, and real dermal riges had rounded tops. Later Matt was able to get ridges with rounded tops by actually making large foot shaped castings.


Ok, let's now look at a comparison between the Elkins Creek cast and CA-19. Also notice we cannot see these cauliflower edges on CA-19 either:
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment



From my own recollection as well as Matt's immediately upon returning for Pocatello, CA-20 was made by Green.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...st&p=322350

How could it be known if CA-20 was made by two different batches of plaster? Why would different people pouring paster make a difference in whether casting artifacts occur? Matt and myself (two dfferent people) have had casting artifacts occur by using the same substrate, the artifacts occur from the substrate.



Matt has addressed that here:
http://www.orgoneresearch.com/cast_history.htm



That was also addressed here:




Chilcutt did find human dermals in the Elkins Creek cast:

John has never mentioned that he made two casts that exhibited those ridges so I don't know where CA19 came from. Maybe it was another person in his group, maybe one of the local people coming to see for themselves. I don't know. As far as why two different people pouring casts would present a problem with CA19 and CA20 looking so similar to one another is not answered by you two working close with one another to in fact duplicate the ridges seen on these. Of course your results are comparable otherwise you would not have reported on the attempts. At least one other person has tried to duplicate Matt's results and has failed to do so. If John did not make CA19 and someone else did, and both CA19 and CA20, not being original casts but mere copies made from Grover Krantz's molds, might we not question their similarities caused by the process of duplication?

I am guessing here but I believe that Grover may have received a cast from another person that was there in 1967. If Grover didn't have John's original or even the other persons, he might of made molds from copies produced by someone else. I think this threw the whole study and Matt realized that he could no more say that the ridges he was producing in fact replicated the ridges on those casts then say that someone before him stuck the originals in the same substrate he was using and generated ridges where there were none to begin with, just like you two are doing.

As far as I know all untreated soil in nature has organic material in it. Didn't Matt say that he suspects that a lack of organic material would greatly contribute to the artifact creation? If that is the case then I would like to see testing begun in the field to see if these ridges "spontaneously" appear there as well using Plaster of Paris. I don't think they will and that most of this experimenting has been steered towards creating these ridges.

Looking at some of the pictures of John's group casting those tracks, the soil wetted out nicely with the plaster mix. The soil was not repeatedly sifted nor baked in a microwave. I also didn't see any dust in the air.

When someone doesn't make enough plaster to fill a mold or track first off and proceeds to make a new batch and then pours it in before a complete setup strange things can occur. Deep curved creases can occur. Other things can happen as well if the second mix is quite a bit thinner in mix. Water will seap through to the surface.

On another note... The fact that Bob Titmus cleaned his tracks with a wire brush was brought up in the article as well. I don't think anyone would mistake these scrapings as to being anything other than that. I brought up the wire brush info because Bob made some very good casts and then destroyed the surface features. This was done so that duplication could be accomplished. Hard fiberglass molds were pulled from the originals so that duplicates could be produced without destroying the originals. I would not have done this but... Grover mentioned to me that he did things like this as well till he discovered dermal ridges on a few of his casts. The article made it seem that this wire brush treatment could be the source for the ridges. No way. I have three casts that show these scrapings.

I know mods don't like quoting directly from posts above, but I have got to break this down into replying to each statement.



Matt and I got the same results by pouring plaster of paris in a depression made in volcanic ash/pumice. I got artifacts every time I did so, and would have reported results if it did not. The "One other person has tried to duplicate Matt's results and has failed to do so." is false. Melissa did not use volcanic ash/pumice, if she did she would have had the same result. Any person would, and I would actually try to do the experiment before accusing another of not reporting results, not geting results, only getting results by workng closely with somebody (BTW Matt and I are separated by a few states, he in WA and I'm in AZ), etc. It's a very simple process. Lon Erickson also got casting artifacts from Loess soil, and he was Meldrum's student and neither Matt or myself have ever met the man. But I have worked with Professor Meldrum, so maybe that somehow made casting artifacts magically appear.



Sure, whatever substrate CA-19 and CA-20 was made in, either the originals or duplicates, produced casting artifacts. It's obvious.



The pattern is the same, none of us can look at CA-20 and say those are dermal ridges, they are absolutley casting artifacts. CA-19 matches in pattern what test casts of casting artifacts show, but not that seen in apes and humans. Pure comparison shows that.


Green stated the cast was made in a hot and dusty environment, along a dirt road that a crew was conducting construction on stripping the top soil, there was no top soil in the track, and there was dust flying everywhere. The images themselves show the soil composition was not organic, and even if those photos are not accurate the casts themselves show casting artifacts, again CA-20 leaves no room for doubt.

Matt's microwaving the soil (Duwamish, bnot volcanic ash) was to sap out the moisture, just as there was no moisture in the tracks CA-19 and CA-20 were made in. There was a span of time between his use of the mocrowave and the plaster pour, the soil itself was at room temp when the pour occurred, and the use of a microwave and temperature are not a variable in terms of the artifacts showing as I've never used a microwave in the experiments I conducted, an have had results from varying temperatures, even lower than 50 degrees.




So do casting artifacts as shown by Matt or myself occur by using a second batch of plaster? That same deep furrow abutted by the thin lines is also a pattern shown in casting artifact tests without using two batches of plaster.

I am not asking for a scientific paper from Mr. Chilcutt - just a written report that chronicles his work with these casts and the reasons for his conclusions.
It would not have to be published anywhere - just made available to at least one of the respected research entities so that people who have friends who are specialists in forensics could look at his work and give their opinions.
Seems very simple to me.

Jimmy's done presentations, interviews and TV shows and has made his position clear. He's explained his work and staked his reputation on his findings. His position hasn't changed.

He's gone back to catching bad guys, but he's not hard to reach.

Drs. Meldrum and Swindler prepared a paper on the Skookum cast; it was rejected. Dr. LeRoy Fish was preparing one for publication in Science; he died.

I don't really feel like arguing with you wolftrax. It doesn't seem that you read my post fully, but only to the parts that invoked your response.

There is no chain of custody with CA19 or CA20. Since they are so close in shape, size and surface features I would bet that shown both of them to John he would be hard put to identify the one he made even. I have made casts in many different places including fire pits with ash in them. I do not get those artifacts. Never have in fact. The artifacts that this study is trying to say is a false lead and legitimized by Jimmy is not fully understood. Looks promising but seems very incomplete so far. I am saying with all the above that I just wrote, you don't know if the ridges weren't a copying function and not in the original casts. Someone could have used powdered clay to make a copy of a cast. Why even Matt was shown that improper use of even a mold will produce artifacts looking like that from the CA19 and CA20. No substrate there, just my rubber mold. His casting in it produced new artifacts on his duplicate.

Grovers molds were mother molds. They consisted of a very thin silastic rubber covering with a base cast on top of that to hold its shape. This thin rubber holding the surface features is so thin that it likes to curl up on itself and the ones I saw at Grover's home didn't even have proper keys in place. This rubber deteriorates over use and time. Grover also used a talc powder on this rubber before making a cast. The point of which there seems to be several places where in this process there could be an introduction of mechanical or chemical processes that would produce the artifacts. To say it is just the substrate really starts to make me wonder. This study had us all thinking it was something else a while back I believe.

________

I take it that being in Arizona you have dusty dirt roads containing no organic material and probably some Plaster of Paris on hand. Can you make a cast right now and show us that yes indeed you get these artifacts every time? If you would use your foot as the impression to cast and take pictures that would also help (making impression, impression details, recording substrate surface temp, mix temp, pics of mix thickness and pouring process, side by side of cast and your foot). We know the only ridges on your foot are natural ones.

I will stand corrected then if it produces these artifacts.

It's nice to see you've changed to actually asking me to cast in dusty roads to see if I get artifacts instead of demanding I do so right now. I'll see what I can do, but you've already seen this done 3 times. Once with Matt and the Duwamish soil, another time with Matt and natural clays, and also done independently by Lon Erickson and Idaho Loess soil.

I have and do read your posts, I simply refuse to be detracted and detoured by various side trails away from the results that show casting artifacts, like the following.

As far as Krantz and his silastic molds for replicating casts, CA-20 and CA-19 both have substrate on them. I've already addressed the unknown chain of custody long ago, those artifacts could have been introduced at any time, they could have been introduced by Cliff Crook's sand box, or by any other means that we could speculate on until the cows come home. It's a big waste of time thnking up scenarios, when we can see the casts themselves exhibit casting artifacts.

Regarding Matt's experiments, if it's not one thing it's another. First he heated the water, then he must have gotten the volcanic ash illegally, then he used "Spill magic" and that somehow was underhanded and justifies someone making up stories about how volcanic ash is illegal and unattainable, then there's some sort of plant near where he got the natural clays that may have contaminated the soil, then a massive Tsunami that hit Oregon and Washington contaminated the Duwamish soil he used, then he sifted it and put it in a microwave and somehow the radiation caused casting artifacts. Nevermind that tests done by heating soil and water did not produce artifacts in soil that didn't produce them in the first place, nevermind that same Tsunami was 300 years ago and also hit Northern California but never made it to Idaho where the Loess soil also produces artifacts, nevermind that volcanic ash is also called pumice and is widely available in pottery stores nationwide but still is never used in tests that claim not to be able to replicate Matt's results.

I'll tell you what, if you're really interested in pursuing the truth "Right now", how about you go and ask Matt to retest the Duwamish soil without putting it in a microwave or sifting it? You know where it's at, you know what results you've had, and you know how to refine the test.

Many more casts than just CA19 and CA20 were made on Onion Mt. that day, night or week, yet those are the only two showing those surface artifacts. Doesn't that make you wonder if the explanation isn't as simple as it being the substrate? There were hundreds of tracks there and shown in the photos of John Green. CA must stand for California and the numbers of how many in Grover’s collection. Of course there are other’s from California in Grover’s collection that had nothing to do with Onion Mt. But I bet there are other’s that were made then from the very spot.

When others have tried to do independent testing to duplicate these results, the conditions became as fluid as the plaster mix. Write out concisely the conditions and I will do the testing. Make it a moving target - forget it.

The clay deposit tests have no bearing on Onion Mt. so I will exclude that test, unless you guys figure it is a combination of clay and volcanic ash. How much volcanic ash, percentage of volume, with what type of soil should the test be done with? Matt's figure (I am guesing 100% volcanic ash) or what is at Onion Mt. (probably pretty low according to information I have read about the soil there.) Matt gave me a bag of Fly Ash. Is this the ash he used? If so it is definately not in the Onion Mt. soil. Chemically is there a difference between Fly Ash and volcanic ash from... is there a difference in volcanic ash from different volcanoes? Don't know if that makes a difference or not.

I will need:

surface of substrate temp.
temp of plaster mix.
mix ratio per volume for plaster mix.
air humidity and temp.
substrate moisture content.
substrate components.
substrate partical size.
substrate compaction weight for impression.

and any special instructions.