On what page(s) does Meldrum discuss these matching features?
Page 256, as I've mentioned. Even if there were a close up of the area on that cast in the book, it probably wouldn't scan well enough to show the details in question.
He acknowledges Tube's work and doesn't do the simplest thing to bring it all down? How dumb are we supposed to be?
Experiments were done in the lab to test if the features near the center, the flattened area and the concentric rings, were from the pour. Then he talks about another 13" cast with ridges similar to the ones Chilcutt identified as dermal ridges, only fainter, apparently because of settling dust. He says this before he mentions Matt's "challenge" (on page 257). I don't think he knew at the time tube isn't quite the "agnostic" he was painting himself to be and Jeff wasn't setting out to "bring down" the work. He was as interested in anyone in finding out what causes this kind of casting artifact.
Chilcutt acknowledged casting artifacts and showed the difference between the rounded ridges and the flattened ridges in a chalk talk with tube. I posted that picture some time ago. Last I heard, it's all very friendly. If it still is, maybe tube will invite him here.
The Elkins Creek cast has the same kind of faint ridges running down the side of the foot. This cast was taken in a flood plain. So, if these "dessication ridges" are caused by a "wicking effect", i.e. dry soil wicking water away and causing the plaster to set up too quickly in layers, why do these same kind of ridges occur in casts taken in mud? The "touched up" cast from Walla Walla shows this too. It also was in mud, as was the Skookum heel.
Melissa Hovey contacted manufacturers, and they didn't know what would cause this effect. According to them, it doesn't happen.
Most casts don't show dermals merely because the substrate is too coarse. The dermatoglyphics are compelling because only primates have friction skin. Bears do not, and it would be difficult to find matching wood grain. Since photos show toe movement (there are 360 photo from BCM/OM, as I recall), there would have to be several sets of fake feet.
More on Elkins Creek:
"In his own words Mr. Akin goes on to describe the events of the day in which he discovered and cast the print.
“It was a morning after a nightly visit that I discovered the footprints. I walked the general area looking for a point of origin. It was shear luck that I found the little muddy island in the middle of the creek. It stuck up like a turtle shell in the creek’s southwestern flow. Its shape was reminiscent of an Australian boomerang. It was densely packed and had survived many flood seasons.
The prints were huge and gave me pause (which means they scared me and I looked around to see if the donor was still nearby). My initial reactions were fright, shock, and disbelief. I was certain that someone was 'hoaxing' these events. However, I fought through my personal misgivings and made the cast.
The creature left two prints on the mud island. Only one print was worthy of documentation. It is this print that has become known as the 'Elkin’s Creek Cast.' When I initially surveyed the print, it was slowly beginning to fill with water seepage. In my opinion, the time elapsed between the printing and my discovery was approximately four hours.
The print was made in a combination of clay soil and river sand. In addition, the casting area was covered with decaying plant matter. It was a fortunate location to make a print cast, as it was moist enough to catch dermal ridges and dry enough to retain the aspects noted in the subsequent print analysis.
I cast the print and continued to look in the area. It appeared to me that the creature moved away to the denser area adjacent to the Flint River.” "
And:
"I asked Mr. Chilcutt what his initial reaction was when first viewing the cast.
“My first impression was wow what a big cast”, Mr. Chilcutt replied.
Mr. Chilcutt went on to explain that while the cast had come from Georgia, it possessed ridges similar to those observed in other casts from Washington State taken several years before the events at Elkin's Creek.
Dr. Krantz, Dr. Meldrum, and Mr. Chilcutt would all come to the same opinion regarding the cast. To all three men, the cast was real. To Mr. Akin who discovered the track not only was the track real, but so was it's source.
“I still do believe that the creature exists”, writes Mr. Akin. “I believe that right now, out on the river in some secluded spot, it is sitting or standing and trying to figure out what to eat next. I am as certain of this fact as the turning of the earth.” "
http://www.georgiabigfoot.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=29
Taken in context, some of these prints and trackways seem highly unlikely to have been hoaxed. John Green has specifically talked about dug-in toes where the prints go up inclines. Rigid fake feet have a snowshow effect. They don't imprint deeply on a firm substrate. John experimented too.
Since Matt and Rick Noll seem to be on friendly terms as well, perhaps tube should show his "agnosticism" by asking to visit Rick's research area in hopes of finding some real prints for comparison rather than just giving us more photos from Alki Beach.
Where do get that?
