[Melissa]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9Daa-cR8rLs/SYm_zUgL2BI/AAAAAAAAApg/h_mgge0VMOc/s320/PEA0334~Peanuts-Never-Ever-EVER-Give-Up-Posters.jpg

Before I continue on to the next article, I wanted to take a moment and have everyone catch their breath and relax. I want everyone to understand my purpose for these tests.

While it has been said I have neglected to follow the work of another to the letter. I feel it necessary to address the fact that my casting work was never intended to be direct commentary to any work being performed by another. The series of articles I have been working on for the last couple years, was not intended to be in direct competition or even a comparison to work done by anyone else. I have, however, felt pushed in that direction, as such I did complete some testing in reference to the work of another.

Yes, I have used the "Onion Mountain Cast" as a reference. I use the "Onion Mountain Cast" because it is the best reference I (or anyone has) for either potential dermal ridge evidence preserved in an alleged bigfoot track, or potential evidence of "artifacts".

My very first cast was an attempt to prove to myself that casting dermal ridges could be done. I did not think it would even be possible. Human dermal ridges are so fine, I did not think it was possible for something as fine as dermal ridges, to hold up and maintain their form under the weight of something like Plaster of Paris. I was actually shocked when I in fact did cast my own dermal ridges. I was wrong, it is possible. I still do not understand why the casting agent did not destroy the dermal ridge pattern in the track of my foot, but maybe down the road I can figure that out.

It should be noted,

the information I was given (to try and follow through with a request) was very limited. The information was not exact in any way. I'm not sure how anyone can try and replicate something of this nature without exact information. I did try (using the limited information I was given) and thus far failed. I expected at some point to have results (in the form of artifacts) but again, I failed. As you will see in the next articles, that has changed.

I did remain true to the work I originally set out to do,

only because my work has nothing to do with whether "artifacts" can happen. I keep saying this, but for some reason (unknown to me) this same criticism keeps coming up. So, I will respond to that criticism.

What is my work about? Why do I continue to experiment with casting?

My casting work is a deliberate attempt to find the causes of artifacts, and share those results with others in this field of research. I am also trying to discover how we as researchers can have some level of confidence, that these artifacts will not be an issue, for researchers. These things can only be discovered, if we delve deeper into the issue, and do the work ourselves.

I suppose I could complete the work,

and not say a word. Then I would be no better than those who have information that might help other researchers, who never discuss it, or share that information.

I have said from day one,

yes artifacts are possible. So, having said that, I have no need or desire to prove they are possible, or validate the work of those before me. Why? Because given enough ingenuity and a good amount of imagination, anyone can make anything happen. I have never had any doubt artifacts are indeed possible. What I find more amazing is that others found that piece of information surprising. Anyone can create anything. But, the question in my mind is "how do we keep this from happening". The question of "can artifacts happen" has been asked, and answered. There is no need to continue that line of questioning. It's over... We have not however answered a very important question "How do we stop artifacts from happening".

Once we as researchers discover the question of "how" artifacts happen,

we can then work to discover "how" to keep it from happening. Once we answer those questions, and have those solutions, the issue of "artifacts" in your casting work can be minimized, because you will have the information to keep artifacts from happening.

Another important factor to consider is this. If something was created via man made manipulation, there is usually a way to detect manipulation. That is another question that I have, and would like to find the answer to.

Those of us who call ourselves "Bigfoot Researchers",

can not depend or rely on skeptics or anyone else for answers to these types of questions, nor should we. Those of us who identify ourselves as "Bigfoot Researchers" should be willing to look at these issues, and find answers on our own.

Just because something "can" happen,

does not mean it "must" or "will" happen, as long as we are willing and able to arm ourselves with information. Casting tracks should not be thrown out as a tool in the collection of evidence for this animal, but we do need to be aware of the fact that artifacts are an issue.

Is my work "Scientific"?

I don't know. I am, however, recording as much information as possible. In my various tests I have recorded everything from water temperature, to humidity levels. I have heated water to 120 degrees and chilled soil to 30 degrees. I (like President Obama) have made my apartment so hot, I could grow Orchids. I am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be. I am however doing everything possible to record the work I am doing, and bringing it to other researchers.

I will make mention of the fact that none of the criticism leveled against my work has been on the "Scientific" level. The criticism has come in the form of personal attacks, and taking the words I have typed out of context. That's fine, just because someone types comments on the internet, that does not make the words true.

Why would that happen?

The answer to that is simple: To get the researchers to simply not care, or pay attention to the idea that your casting may not be worthless. As long as you (the field researcher) continue to think casting is of no use, you will not even consider field casting.

It has worked.

I have been told by a few researchers to simply stop this work They feel there is no reason to learn or even collect tracks found in the woods by casting, now that artifacts are an issue. If I had any information that even implied casting is of no use, I certainly would not waist any more time on this issue.

My answer to that is simple.

Instead of not casting, why don't we (as a community) do whatever we can to find out how artifacts happen, and what it takes to be certain they won't happen when you pour a cast in the field? There are more in this community that want this necessary information, than don't..

Lets not "throw out the baby with the bathwater". There is no need.

We should always be willing to investigate,

and try to obtain answers for ourselves. That is what I am attempting to do. I will not be swayed by personal attacks or off topic criticism. This is too important to those who spend countless hours in the field, looking for and trying to document the animal we call "Bigfoot".

[Drew]

Until a specimen is found, a Cast of a footprint is nothing more than a Wall-hanging. Even a Jeffrey Meldrum Endorsed footprint is just a wall hanging with Meldrum's signature on it.

[Melissa]

That is your opinion Drew, and you are entitled to it.

But, for those of us actively searching for information (in the field) about this alleged animal, a cast of a possible footprint is evidence --- regardless of what you might think.

Get a copy, hang it on your wall.. They do look cool :)

[TGS]

FWIW, has anyone (besides me) tried Liquid Plastic as a casting medium...it flows into very fine areas and sets up in literally seconds...once dried is pliable and can be used as a "mold" to render additional casts from the original...available at Lowe's (et.al.) usually found in the paint section.

[Melissa]

Is this an item that heats up? I would be interested in this, if it will actually preserve something as fine as dermal ridges.

I would like to hear more.

[TGS]

Melissa, on Feb 5 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Is this an item that heats up? I would be interested in this, if it will actually preserve something as fine as dermal ridges.

I would like to hear more.

It's the stuff you dip (the handles) pliers, screw drivers, hammers, etc. into to get a sure grip type coating...it sets up in seconds after exposure to the atmosphere and although I'm sure it generates some heat in the "popping off" process I've not noticed any significant emissons thereof.

This post has been edited by TGS: 06 February 2009 - 12:20 AM

[Melissa]

Have you ever attempted to use this to cast a track of your own foot?

[TGS]

I have done my own finger(s) and it produced perfect reproductions.

[Washingtonian]

TGS, I assume you mean that you poured the liquid plastic directly onto your finger, right?

I agree with you Mel, anybody who has worked in quality control of a production plant knows that just because you find a flaw you don't stop making the product. You find out what is causing the flaw, correct the problem and continue producing a better quality product.

I don't agree that castings are good for nothing but a wall hanging. I have mentioned several times that I have a casting of a Grizzly bear's paw that very clearly shows scars. If we were able to identify dermal ridges and scars in Bigfoot castings and find the same pattern of dermal ridges or the same scars in a casting made miles apart it would be of significance.

While artifacts are possible I highly doubt that they would be an exact copy between two or more castings made at different times even in the same trackway, let alone miles and months apart. So why not learn to properly make castings using a method (manufacturers instructions) that has consistently shown that dermal ridges can be captured in repeated tests on human foot prints?

Whether you get dermals or not, they do make a great wall hanging.

[Melissa]

Washingtonian, on Feb 7 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

I agree with you Mel, anybody who has worked in quality control of a production plant knows that just because you find a flaw you don't stop making the product. You find out what is causing the flaw, correct the problem and continue producing a better quality product.

That's exactly right Wash. I have the feeling the answer to determining fakes made using this whipping method, may be able to be detected using "Gravity Tests". This is something another Researcher told me about as a way of testing the weight (with accuracy). We were discussing the outcome of my final work, and I said "There must be a weight difference between the whipped casts and those made correctly". So, this other researcher brought up "Gravity Tests" as a way of getting an accurate weight. I may try this, to see for myself. But, It will be a while. Im sure you can imagine I am a bit burned out on casts... LOL

Wash said:

I don't agree that castings are good for nothing but a wall hanging. I have mentioned several times that I have a casting of a Grizzly bear's paw that very clearly shows scars. If we were able to identify dermal ridges and scars in Bigfoot castings and find the same pattern of dermal ridges or the same scars in a casting made miles apart it would be of significance.

I agree again Wash. Frankly I get a bit angry when I read this too. Skeptics and researchers alike, enjoy throwing out that we should use police procedures when collecting evidence, yet they seem to have either a lack of basic knowledge of word usage and definitions when it comes to this. If people want to throw out criticism such as this, they should actually know the real definition of evidence. Footprint casts do qualify as evidence, they do not qualify as proof. There is a big difference between those two words. A body on a slab is proof ---- a cast of a footprint is evidence that this animal may have been in the area where the cast was collected.

If people want to use these words, they need to learn what they mean.

Wash said:

While artifacts are possible I highly doubt that they would be an exact copy between two or more castings made at different times even in the same trackway, let alone miles and months apart. So why not learn to properly make castings using a method (manufacturers instructions) that has consistently shown that dermal ridges can be captured in repeated tests on human foot prints?

Well I can tell you, all my casts that were created and did have artifacts -- the artifacts were (most often) in the same general area, but they do not look exactly the same, there are small variances. So, I would say you may be right about that.

Wash said:

Whether you get dermals or not, they do make a great wall hanging.

You are absolutely right. :)

[TGS]

Washingtonian, on Feb 7 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

TGS, I assume you mean that you poured the liquid plastic directly onto your finger, right?

"Dipped" my finger into the pint bottle just as you'd place a screwdriver handle (et. al.) to get a coating. The stuff is thin enough to flow into just about any small nook & cranny. I first lightly sprayed the finger with Pam to render a non-stick "mold" medium. In the field that would not be necessary as the soil is usually loose enough to give up the impression w/o damage.

I agree with you Mel, anybody who has worked in quality control of a production plant knows that just because you find a flaw you don't stop making the product. You find out what is causing the flaw, correct the problem and continue producing a better quality product.

I don't agree that castings are good for nothing but a wall hanging. I have mentioned several times that I have a casting of a Grizzly bear's paw that very clearly shows scars. If we were able to identify dermal ridges and scars in Bigfoot castings and find the same pattern of dermal ridges or the same scars in a casting made miles apart it would be of significance.

While artifacts are possible I highly doubt that they would be an exact copy between two or more castings made at different times even in the same trackway, let alone miles and months apart. So why not learn to properly make castings using a method (manufacturers instructions) that has consistently shown that dermal ridges can be captured in repeated tests on human foot prints?

Whether you get dermals or not, they do make a great wall hanging.

[Creekfreak]

I have four leaning on my liveing room window seal for all to see my scepitc freinds see them there eyes get big and they dont say a word they are humbled at the sight of them .
I think it all boils down to the right conditions mel if I had found these tracks sooner they would have been much better then they are .
Just a few hours would have made a big difference in detail of the dermals .
Soil conditions weather and how much mosture is in the soil are the bigest part of it you can have the best casting materals in the world but if the track was not made in optimal soil you wont get as much detail .
The dryer the soil the more delicate it will be in other words any dermals would be easyer to knock over when you make your pour therefore you would loose any eveidence of a dermal .
Also mixing is very importent and pot time comes into factor the smoother the better no lumps of course a lump could knock over a dermal.

Mel your work is all to importent dont ever ever give up !
TGS you must have red my mind I saw a cast somewhere that looked like it was some kind of rubber I was wondering what it was what I saw looked to be clear and blue in color

[Melissa]

Creek,

I am not giving up. I'm just taking a break. There is no need to give up, I actually have this all pretty much under control so far.

I do wonder about other factors being an issue in casting. But, I am taking a break from casting for a bit. Then, on to the next question. :)

[Melissa]

I see Mr. Crowley has responded to my recent tests.

I also see he is again trying to make me out to be some bad, bad, person.. I expected no less.

Mr. Crowley states the problem that causes artifacts is simply the wicking of the water into the substrate. Well, if that were the case, I would have had "artifacts" when I poured my first cast (using the pumice). That did not happen..

So, apparently Mr. Crowley is missing something his "Pharmacy degree" isn't telling him (yes, we are all incredibly impressed by your degree in pharmacy). If you are a skeptic, it's ok to be an "Expert" I guess. He also refuses to acknowledge the mixing instructions anyone can find on the USGypsum Website. Google "Hanson Cage Mixer", you tell me if that looks like a set of chopsticks or a wooden spoon.. I think the answer is obvious. Also, pay attention to the part where they discuss air entrapment. Apparently air entrapment is an issue, because it is discussed.

All the information I gave in my current article was factually correct, and supported by the link to the USGypsum website.

If you stumble upon his rant, let me know if you can point out the "thing" he is missing. It did not take me long to spot it. LMAO.

In fact, What initially caught my attention in the beginning is EXACTLY what the gentleman from USGypsum points out.. Can anyone find that comment? The gentleman is absolutely correct, I stated this to Crowley, he poo pooed me and never even attempted to respond to that specific issue.

Which is why he is whining now. Wicking has been an issue, which is why Crowley went with Pumice. Duh... Who does not know that. But, Wicking is not the only issue, which is obvious to anyone not clouded by anger.

Don't worry Crowley, your pedistal is still there. You may perch whenever you like. Oh, and Calling me a groupie makes you look so incredibly professional and not at all emotional. What a cry baby. Someone get him a bottle, and a burp rag :)

I thank you for the laugh though :)

Edited to add:

If Mr. Crowley wants to continue to make this personal, I can not stop him. I will NOT respond to any further comments by him, as they are not productive and are simply meant to confuse and manipulate those involved in this field of research. If Mr. Crowley would like to actually discuss the work we have BOTH done, I am all for it, but responding to his temper fits and insults of a sexual nature wont happen.

His inability to stay on topic and address the issue really should make us all wonder what his motivation really is. This is not a contest for me. If people want this information they will search it out, and they have, I know this because I have talked to hundreds of researchers who are interested in what I have found.

My work is about helping the researchers in the field, as such I will continue to make myself available to ANY researcher who wants to know exactly what I have been finding out. I will not make myself available to those who think insults are a socially exceptable or adult way of behaving in public.

I may not have a degree in Pharmacy, but I can tell you, his attitude is not scientific.

*edited to add, this article has been updated and added to, for The Search For Bigfoot Blog*

[Washingtonian]

I'm not sure where these continued rants by Crowley are, but honestly I don't care. I saw enough of his ways to convince me that he is way off base and his ego cannot handle a properly educated discussion on this subject.

I clearly saw an attitude of "I've made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts". If anyone with a pharmaceutical degree does not know and understand the importance of following the manufacturer's instructions then I see little reason to even try to follow his methods or logic. Then, as if to make himself somehow look better, he brings up other issues that are totally unrelated.

I decided long ago to leave his experiments in the dust and to do my best to learn and practice proper methods that have the best chance of capturing as much detail in castings as possible, and yes, we can capture dermal ridges. Of course not in every print as there are other variables that have noting to do with the medium or wicking that can make a big difference.

[Melissa]

Washingtonian, on Feb 13 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

I'm not sure where these continued rants by Crowley are, but honestly I don't care. I saw enough of his ways to convince me that he is way off base and his ego cannot handle a properly educated discussion on this subject.

I clearly saw an attitude of "I've made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts". If anyone with a pharmaceutical degree does not know and understand the importance of following the manufacturer's instructions then I see little reason to even try to follow his methods or logic. Then, as if to make himself somehow look better, he brings up other issues that are totally unrelated.

I decided long ago to leave his experiments in the dust and to do my best to learn and practice proper methods that have the best chance of capturing as much detail in castings as possible, and yes, we can capture dermal ridges. Of course not in every print as there are other variables that have noting to do with the medium or wicking that can make a big difference.

Hi Wash :)

You are a wise, wise man.

[JohnCartwright]

I am not interested in casting, but even I can see that Uncle Fester is just ranting and his butt sniffers are praising his name. It's entertaining to read.

[Melissa]

Well in all honesty.

I read Matt Crowleys response, because I keep thinking someday he might drop the attitude and start discussing the topic.. My bad.

If the rest have said anything, I wouldn't know. I don't pay attention to those who do not take the time to read up on both sides of an issue, and assume they have all the answers. It is truly not worth the time of anyone.

I have too many others who are evaluating both sides of this issue and are willing to discuss how to avoid the problem of artifacts (which is a problem we must deal with), to waist time on those who are ignoring the obvious, just so they can have a new reason to complain.

[LAL]

I just read your latest article but can't comment because there's a problem with the password (again).

Matt's a welder, now, isn't he? He filtered me on JREF for calling him a lampmaker (which was the last I'd seen from his MySpace). Shame on me. His girlfriend straightened me out in no uncertain terms. He passed four courses in welding and earned his certificates, so that makes him an exert on chopsticks.

He specializes in personal attacks. A noted forensic fingerprint examiner we all know about won't debate him because of his "persona".

Methinks we need fewer "personas" in the field and more facts.

Good work, Melissa!

[Melissa]

Matt put on his own site (or rag) he is a Lampmaker.. Matt's history is much more interesting than mine. Crowley was with the Randy Rhodes show (professional side show "guy". Is that the politically correct term?) Crowley performed doing a stunt where he would shove a tube from his mouth to his stomach, pour various liquids etc into this tube, then throw it back up into glasses for the audience to drink.

For those of you who did not know... This is why he calls himself "tube" on the forums.

If I were him I would be proud of the "Lampmaking" job. He touts himself now as having a degree in "Pharmacy"...What does that mean exactly? I thought it was Pharmacology?

Now, he is a welder?

Apparently he has trouble making up his mind. Maybe being a welder gives him more access to Superfund sites so he can dig up more of his "virgin clay soil". LMAO... That was priceless, but sadly true. LOL.

Are you sure that was his girlfriend? I think it's him (and many, many website "moderators" and "admin" on multiple sites have told me that too). Things are said under his girlfriends name on various sites, only Matt would understand and know, and under this name he gets to be even more "vicious", prove it is not him.

Matt is a professional at one thing, and one thing only "dazzle them with bullshit". And, he is good at it. I thought we were in this for the "facts", it's clear to me it is more about the "persona", of their most beloved. Those who call themselves the "skeptical crowd" in this, are not doing that at all. They are giving him a free pass, simply because he does not talk nice to me. If anyone else posted the kind of crap science he posts, these people would be all over them. Crowley gets a free pass - only because he is willing to bad mouth the people involved.. Now, that's sad, but very true. I have never once seen any of those "skeptical bigfooters" ask him the kind of hard questions, they ask of witnesses or anyone else who calls themselves a "researcher". Apparently if you call yourself a "skeptic" you can do pretty much whatever you want. I truly hate hypocrisy.

As far as a very noted forensic fingerprint examiner.

Matt Crowley needs to finish the things he started. He needs to publish the actual information that has been requested, to back up his "results". He has not done that. Anyone who is backing him, as near as I can tell, are simply taking him at his word. There is nothing you can find on the internet which tells you his percentages, exact mix ratios - or anything that shows how he was able to create these artifacts.

Hell, Wolftrax headed for the hills when it was discovered Crowley was not collecting his "virgin clay soil" from a "virgin" source.. He was taking his trusty shovel and heading to an area, designated as a "Superfund site". If folks do not know what that is, they need to find out.

Matt published all these still photos on various sites, of him in the "Patty Pose" claiming victory in the duplication of the "Compliant gait". I asked if he would be putting up moving video of this, as still photos are good, but I would prefer to see him do this in motion. He said he would... I have never seen this video, after many, many requests for this video.

It's too bad Medical experts do not agree with him, that a human can completely duplicate this walk. Does his degree in Pharmacy or throwing up fluids for folks to drink, or even his welding certificates, give him the credibility to question the expertise of medical experts? I don't think so.

Matt tries to duplicate this in the "Monsterquest" episode Bigfoot ----- fails miserably.

What a lucky guess that was. I truly had no idea it was him.

But, I found it hysterical and I wondered (while watching the show) why the production company would put someone in a Bigfoot Costume, if they looked so clearly "human in a bigfoot costume walking", now I understand. Mr. Perfect Crowley deserves his own lumps too for failure, which he clearly can not take. He failed in that test. PERIOD.

I wish I had some control over accounts on Blogspot, but sadly I do not. I can either allow posts, or not. Im not sure why you are having trouble posting :(