LTC8K6 said:
Care to back up the 1088 claim with evidence?
You posted the photo with the object you thought caused the distortion, didn't you? Evidently you were unaware at the time there were another 1088 tracks counted in that trackway. More were found later across the river. More were found earlier near the dump.
Chilcutt said the dermal ridges couldn't be human because they went up and down the sides of the foot. This is precisely what Crowley shows in his demo. This eliminates those supposedly unique dermal ridge claims, imo.
This is the thread:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?
Any other dermal ridges could easily be human ones magnified by the latex enlargement technique.
The latex argument has been experimentally debunked by Krantz and by Meldrum in his lab, and evidently by Sarmiento on the NG special, if I understood correctly what was shown there (I can't get the channel). Noll too, I think. He said the resulting product is too fragile to be of any use.
The characteristic flow is not on the sides of the foot. It's along the bottom near the outside edge and across the ball. The same ridges would not be showing up from casting artifacts except in similar substrates. The Onion Mountain cast was unique in that respect.
Chilcutt points out the rich texture on LMS and it can be seen on the Elkins Creek cast. Chilcutt caught an artifact apparently caused by the person making the casting. He's noted the casting artifact ridges are flat whereas the dermal ridges are rounded.
Also:
" QUOTE (billkirbywofb @ Jul 18 2005, 02:35 PM)
Tube,
I have a couple of questions. First, could the "dermal ridges" be a result of a Layered Cake effect, as a result of many layers of plaster being layed down. With each layer having a brief moment to set up before the next layer being put down. Second, has any cast that you have made been cut in half down the center of the cast lengthwise. To see if the "ridges" pass thru the cast (my layered cake effect). Or to prove that they are surface effects only. Third, does this osmosis effect (for the lack of a better term) apply to splash casting technique. Thank you very much for your time.
Regarding the "layered cake" effect, the honest answer is, I don't know. I seem to remember Jimmy Chilcutt addressing this possibility in the Willow Creek conference DVD but I would have to double check this. The direct answer is that this proposed mechanism is probably not relevant to the world of Bigfootery, as no one pours plaster like that. Before Rick Noll popularized splash casting everyone simply poured the slurry into the track in "one fell swoop", as my mother used to say. There would be no good reason for anyone to pour slurry in multiple layers and as far as I know, no one ever has.
I have never sectioned a cast intentionally. Inevitably, if you work with cement casts, one will be dropped and broken. Same with me. Cement casts are solid inside. Casting artifacts are surface effects only.
Regarding splash casting, that is a very good question. Neither Rick Noll nor I think splash casting would do this but neither of us have yet tested it. Rick is big on documenting everything so I'm waiting until we both have time off in order to test this and perhaps videotape it.
More importantly, why do neither of us think splash casting would do this? Since the first cement to be applied to the substrate is "splashed" on, very little slurry is actually making contact with the substrate. This means that very little total water can flow from the cement to the substrate. The tests I have done suggest, but do not prove, that a significant amount of water is required to flow from the slurry to the substrate for the casting artifact effect to occur.
Some of the cement "coupons" I sent to Jimmy Chilcutt were only about 6mm thick. These contained casting artifacts, but not of the same kind I posted photographs of earlier on this thread. You will note that the test cast adjacent to the Onion Mountain cast is of a similar thickness, perhaps 2cm thick. This plaster of Paris test cast was made after I began to slowly realize that TOTAL SLURRY VOLUME may be a significant condition in determining the size and shape of the resulting casting artifact ridges.
A 2cm test cast is also more representative of the thickness of a real Sasquatch footprint cast. So my answer is: I believe, but do not know, that splash casting would be much less likely to produce casting artifacts due to the very small amount of slurry initially applied. As this "eggshell" layer begins to set up, water from cement slurry applied afterwards will not be able to flow into the substrate. At least this is my theory!
Something else should also be addressed. Anyone sophisticated enough to be engaging in splash casting in the first place would probably know enough to use a barrier spray if the cast was being made in a fine, dry, powder substrate. The most famous Sasquatch cast made using splash casting is, of course, the Skookum cast. As far as I know, the substrate involved was not quite mud but was very damp. That would eliminate the possibility of these kind of surface artifacts right there. As far as I know, Rick Noll did not use any kind of barrier spray on this impression simply because he did not need to, as the substrate was quite moist. Obviously he would be the person to address this, not me. I have also studied the male and female copies of this cast at the Seattle Sasquatch symposium and I am satisfied that the surface textures seen on the cast are NOT casting artifacts."
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11363&hl=onion mountain cast&st=60
