Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6
Best Evidence: Bigfoot


Actor quickly and easily duplicates Patty's gait. Both with and without a costume on. Walked exactly like Patty.

This was on the Discovery Channel? Maybe I can get someone to tape it for me next time it airs. Tube claims he can duplicate the gait too. Krantz did the "Groucho walk". So? Easy when one has seen the the film. Exactly? I doubt it?

The gait is evidently like that of Australopithecines. Just how would someone come up with that in 1967 when nothing below the skull was known of them? The IM index is a match as well. Lucy wasn't discovered until 1974; latest findings on the Australopithecine gait were last year, I believe.

"Actor duplicates Patty walk" is a hollow victory for the skeptics.

The REAL question is.....why did Bob "Where am I?" Heironimus even walk with an unnatural bent-kneed gait in the first place??
Why didn't he just walk like he, and the rest of humanity, normally do? After all, Roger's super-suit should have been enough to make the film convincing.

Also...speaking of Bob...what did he do with his forehead when he put the suit on? It seems to be missing in the film.

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Quote:

I think Bigfooters are the same no matter where you find them. Basically, their belief in Bigfoot remains immune to any kind of skepticism.

I think skeptics, on this board, are the same...100% skeptical...no matter what type of Bigfoot evidence is being discussed.
Examples....(unlike in the post quoted above)....

1) Greg:
"So far, I am not aware of ANY evidence which indicates with ANY degree of likeliness, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

2) kitakaze:
"Your Joyce anecdote has NOTHING to do with evidence and everything to do with belief."

3) RayG:
"There's never ANY verifiable evidence, the determination and belief are quite evident, there have been organized searches, papers written, fleeting photos, blurry films....and yet it all adds up to...NOTHING."

Skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...and analyse no evidence.

"Believers" at least have open minds, and can discuss and weigh evidence in terms of "probabilities"....and not just in terms of "it's proof" or "it's nothing".

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

LAL wrote: "Actor duplicates Patty walk" is a hollow victory for the skeptics.

It doesn't matter if it's hollow or has a nougat center.

Quote:

The REAL question is.....why did Bob "Where am I?" Heironimus even walk with an unnatural bent-kneed gait in the first place??

Bob Heironimus apparently walks strangely (like Patty) in real life. Friends, family and residents of Yakima have always known him for his funky way of walking. When you see it, you swear it looks like Patty as a human. I think Bob walks like Patty because he was Patty.

Quote:

Why didn't he just walk like he, and the rest of humanity, normally do? After all, Roger's super-suit should have been enough to make the film convincing.

Roger's Bigfoot costume + Bob Heironimus walking like he always does = Patty.

Quote:

Also...speaking of Bob...what did he do with his forehead when he put the suit on? It seems to be missing in the film.

His forehead along with the rest of his head, was inside the Patty headpiece.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

I think skeptics, on this board, are the same no matter what type of Bigfoot evidence is being discussed.

Everything would change when skeptics are presented with a biological specimen.

Quote:

Skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...and analyse no evidence.

Because the kind of evidence being presented cannot be directly linked to a real Bigfoot. Oh, we see it, hear it and analyze it - so don't pull that childish semantic game.

Quote:

"Believers" at least have open minds, and can discuss and weigh evidence in terms of "probabilities"....and not just in terms of "it's proof" or "it's nothing".

Believers actually have very closed minds. I don't know how anyone can assign meaningful probabilities to any of this stuff. But we only need to work with possibilities. Skeptics usually say that Bigfoot is possible. Believers do seem to reject the possibility that BF does not exist, and so in a way they fit the description of scoftic.

If we could just get some confirmatory evidence (almost certainly would need to be biological) skeptics would shift their positions like a school of fish. Skepticism about Bigfootery claims could still remain, but not about the existence of the creature itself.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Also...speaking of Bob...what did he do with his forehead when he put the suit on?

Speaking of which, how goes your pinhead investigation? Anything you can share with us so far?

RayG

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Quote:

Speaking of which, how goes your pinhead investigation? Anything you can share with us so far?

It's been delayed due to personal circumstances...and a long drawn-out "debate" with kitakaze, about Joyce's sighting report...and her phone call to me.
Technically speaking, it wasn't an actual debate. I talked about "probabilities", while kitakaze hurled insult after insult at me... ...and declared "we can't say anything about her report."

But I'll be working on it more, and posting it in the near future.

[SweatyYeti]

What a beautiful response, William....you demonstrated EXACTLY what I said about skeptics in my post! Thank you!
William Parcher wrote:

Quote:

Everything would change when skeptics are presented with a biological specimen.(Also known as "proof.")

I agree....when YOU have PROOF...you'll then see "evidence"...and not until then.
Hence what I said earlier...."skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...analyse no evidence."
You showed the truth of my statement vivdly.

Quote:

Quote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Skeptics see no evidence...hear no evidence...and analyse no evidence.

Oh, we see it, hear it and analyze it - so don't pull that childish semantic game.

The word "see" in my statement means "accept", as evidence. It's not a semantic game. I realize that you can physically SEE the footprint casts, read the sighting reports, etc.
The point was that skeptics think, and state, over and over again that any and all evidence for Bigfoot is meaningless and worthless...that is, NOT EVIDENCE of Bigfoot's existence.
YOU just stated it directly in your post, William....

Quote:

I don't know how anyone can assign meaningful probabilities to any of this stuff.

Are you aware that you just said that?
Fact...you don't "see" any evidence for Bigfoot. Just like I stated...and you confirmed.

Quote:

Because the kind of evidence being presented cannot be directly linked to a real Bigfoot.

Your phrase "directly linked to a real Bigfoot" is just another way of saying "PROOF".
Again....and AS ALWAYS...a skeptic frames any discussion of Bigfoot evidence in terms of "proof"...EVERY SINGLE TIME, without exception.

Quote:

Believers actually have very closed minds.

Any quotes to support that?

Quote:

But we only need to work with possibilities. Skeptics usually say that Bigfoot is possible.

Actually, William....EVERYBODY in the WORLD, with a working brain, would agree that it's POSSIBLE that Bigfoot exists.
It doesn't violate any known laws of physics...and neither does it violate the human "evolutionary tree" evidence.
Anyone who would state that it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for a Bigfoot-type creature to exist, anywhere in the world, is just plain toopid.

Quote:

Believers do seem to reject the possibility that BF does not exist, and so in a way they fit the description of scoftic.

We seem to....but DO WE really? Got a quote to show us?

Quote:

If we could just get some confirmatory evidence (almost certainly would need to be biological) skeptics would shift their positions like a school of fish. Skepticism about Bigfootery claims could still remain, but not about the existence of the creature itself.

"Confirmatory evidence" ....also known as PROOF.
You skeptics are so predictable...it's a gas!

"If we ONLY had proooooof......just a little bit o' proof!!"

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Thank you Melissa, just a few questions. Do think Tube's initial finding of dessication ridges was based on a bias towards the evidence? Has anyone else been able to reproduce these features? What are these features you mention concerning the OM cast?

Hello Kitakaze. First off let me say, I do my very best to respond when I am questioned, because I want people to understand what I am saying, I just hope if it takes me a couple of days you will understand

First question - You would have to ask Tube that. I do not have an opinion on his thought process. I like to stick to the facts that I know. I have enough on my plate as far as this research is concerned to have to wonder what the bias of someone may or may not be, and what role that plays in their opinion - and I am really not concerned with that.

Short answer - I haven't even given it thought.

Second Question - I see that Desertyeti says he has in fact obtained the same results as Tube, however I have not seen his work in this, so I really can not comment.

Third Question- The features I am talking about I will do my best to explain, please understand I am not an anatomist.

If you look at a copy of the Onion Mountain Cast, on the sides of the cast you will see what appears to be something along the lines of "skin folds". I first noticed this at the 2005 Conference in Jefferson Texas. Now, if this was because of an error in mixing the casting cement - one would expect to see the same folding in areas that are just as thick, this is not the case. It is specifically in this area of the foot (sides only). Part of my tests included some very unflattering photos of my foot - to show that our feet do have these "folds" when we apply pressure to our feet (the simple act of standing will cause this to happen). Now, is this responsible for what I noticed on the cast of the Onion Mountain Track - I don't know, but I am looking into it.

I did point this out to Tube, but last I knew he couldn't explain it either. Maybe he has since, I don't know.

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by drapier

Please forgive a novice what may, perhaps be a few basic questions, but what are your implications here?

Are you suggesting that Tube has somehow hoaxed the data that he has come up with?

Are you suggesting that he has photoshopped the pictures that appear on his web site so the casting artifacts he claims are not genuine?

Are you suggesting that he has created some sort of mold that produces what appears to be casting artifacts?

Are you suggesting that he is trying to pass off real bigfoot prints as ones he has created in his experiments?

Short answer to a bunch of questions you have obviously given more thought to than I have...

No.

[tube]

Some of you on this board might be caught off guard by all the posts here regarding volcanic ash. How exactly did I come to work with this weird, exotic stuff?
Well, just so we have it on record and right out in public, I'll tell you. Several years ago I began a sort of study to find out if there was a mineral powder that could be added to epoxy to create a useful putty. It's foolish to pay epoxy prices for mineral powder diluants. Think of it as a sort of high-grade "Bondo." Eventually I found that fly ash, a byproduct of coal burning, was an outstanding material for this purpose. But until I came upon fly ash, I had bags and bags of mineral powders in my basement. I have a friend who works at System Three epoxy near Seattle; he even gave me some tech-grade mineral powder additives.
Once when I was at Wal-Mart, I came upon this:



A product called Spill Magic. Believe it or not, I bought it not to absorb spills, but to mix with epoxy! Freakish, I know...

Frankly I can't remember how it worked out as far as adding to epoxy goes, as I settled on fly ash soon enough.

Some time passed, and I became interested in the dermals business, late in 2004. As I've detailed elsewhere, I built a wood box to contain these mineral powders and soils for testing. After I tested fly ash, I began to test the other mineral powders in my basement to see what would happen when cement casting compounds were poured over them. Indeed, I made a test cast using Spill Magic.

I obtained rather spectacular desiccation ridges in this cast. This would have been about March or April 2005. But by this time I had run out of Spill Magic, I went back to Wal-Mart for more, but they were out.

Eventually it occurred to me to simply figure out what the stuff actually was. Looking on the ingredients we see this:



I see now that a search for "CAS#93763-70-3" comes up with perlite, but I must have googled the text instead, as googling "amorphous aluminum silicate" gives this website as the first hit, at least today:

http://www.reade.com/Products/Minera...silicate).html

Pumice! Yeah, I didn't have to buy Spill Magic--I could just get some pumice! I can't remember what I did next: I'm sure I searched the Internet for a source of pumice in Seattle. Eventually I found Seattle Pottery Supply. My memory is that they told me that they labeled their pumice as "volcanic ash."

In retrospect, it all makes sense, as Spill Magic works its magic because it is an effective DESICCANT.

Some time ago, on Bigfoot Forums, I began to interact with Melissa regarding casting artifacts. At the time, I rather naively thought she wanted to duplicate what tests I had been doing. Thus, I publicly suggested she obtain some volcanic ash at a pottery supply store for testing. She did not do so, and instead obtained Tricalcium Phosphate, a product I had never tested and one totally different chemically than pumice, which is mostly oxides of silicon and aluminium (IUPAC spelling all the way, baby). She further asserted, publicly, that Tricalcium Phosphate is "full of iron," an egregious error, and one that exposed her rather pathological ignorance of basic chemistry.

At this point I could see the battle was lost--that I would never be able to meaningfully direct her to reproduce these tests.

I stood by and watched as Melissa began a series of ever-more escalating claims about what she claimed I "had told her to do." I suspected at this time that Melissa was lying, as I had no recollection of "saying" many of these things I was alleged to have said.

Unfortunately, I had also deleted most of my "PM" mail through Bigfoot Forums, so I had no way to prove that I never said the things she claimed I said.

Over the last several months I witnessed Melissa make ever-more exaggerated claims, many of which implied that I was lying about where I got my volcanic ash. The implication was that I had obtained volcanic ash from Mount St. Helens, an illegal act, according to her.

I suspected that if I remained silent on the matter Melissa's hubris would eventually get the better of her, and she would eventually make a mistake. This is part of the reason why Dana and I obtained the bag of volcanic ash from Seattle Pottery Supply and saved the receipt. I waited for Melissa to "cross the line."

Indeed, she eventually did "cross the line" and publicly claimed on this board that I was lying about where I had obtained my volcanic ash. This is a demonstrably false claim, as my receipt posted here proves. Thus, Melissa's claim amounts to libel and defamation.

I see that Melissa's libelous actions are currently being discussed on BFF:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...=16440&st=300#

Being that Melissa placed her call(s) to Seatte Pottery Supply at a time when they had plenty of volcanic ash in stock, her claims are either gross distortions or flat-out lies.

If it were up to me, libel and defamation would get one banned from this forum, but this is not my decision to make. At this point, I view Melissa as essentially a libelous troll, and I may simply have to resort to the "block" function, as I rather enjoy posting my Bigfoot-related musings here and plan to continue to do so.

At this point I suspect that Melissa's credibility as a "Bigfoot researcher" may be finished, but I could be wrong. As in most fringe sciences, the "debunkers" and "scoftics" are the most reviled by the advocates, and over-the-top attacks by the advocates are the norm. The personalized, attack-dog mentality we see here directed at Dr. Wroblewski and myself is an old, old theme in fringe science. It's clear to me now why Melissa only provides the subtext of phone call conversations she claims to have made instead of provides transcripts with her conversant's full name.

The implication that I had done something underhanded was even too much for advocate Rick Noll, as he posted this comment on Bigfoot Forums in what he claims is his last post:

"A case in point is my working relationship with Matt Crowley. It has been my pleasure to work with such an individual who strived to do everything in his power the right way. Did he make mistakes? Sure, as does everyone… but did he do anything underhanded? In my opinion no! Many times I watched as he questioned and worked the issues and I thought… ah ha! Here we go. He is going to try this or that now... Sneak this one by… But he didn’t and really surprised me in always doing the right thing."

Melissa might have better luck over in the UFO field, as that is a venue where anonymous sources and hearsay are the order of the day. Perhaps she could turn her attentions toward Kal Korff and defend the honor of Billy Meier.

I fully expected to be treated like how I saw Greg Long treated when I came out with the "casting artifact" business. Strangely, this did not happen. Even Chilcutt didn't counter attack me, and in fact the last time I spoke to him on the phone I rather enjoyed the conversation. I ended up chatting with him for about 45 minutes. Chilcutt reminds me in many ways of my father, who taught law at the University of Montana for many years. Personally I get along with all these guys, and continue to have fruitfull exchanges with Chris Murphy, Daniel Perez, and Roger Knights. I like Jeff Meldrum, as he has treated me most fairly. It's clear I disagree with these people about various things, but they, like me, are capable of being civil and polite.

No, the only persons who have treated me like Greg Long was treated post right here on this board, LAL and Melissa.

Yes, truth be told, I've been waiting months for the day Melissa's libelous claims and gross distortions would be called out, and here it is. I think I'll go out and buy some diet Moutain Dew and watch the UFC tonight to celebrate...

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I disagree. I think Bigfooters are the same no matter where you find them. Basically, their belief in Bigfoot remains immune to any kind of skepticism.

You'd be wrong. Some of us just know more than you do.

Who do you think exposes the hoaxes? Sceptics?

Check out this scathing article regarding Tom Biscardi:

http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2007...-it-again.html

[William Parcher]

Bigfootery is a scam and Lu, SweatyYeti & Melissa are its self-appointed foot soldiers.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by tube

No, the only persons who have treated me like Greg Long was treated post right here on this board, LAL and Melissa.

Oh, you poor thing!

Nowhere have I seen either one of us post anything close to this from you to me in Post #80 and beyond (it got worse)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...8&#entry296368

or this to Melissa in Post #188:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...5&#entry349625


Is using volcanic ash because it's "like" Onion Mountain soil anything like using Skittles as if they're the same as chocolate chips?

I referred to Rick's post earlier in the thread. I guess you missed that.

There are times when I have to wonder if you and your partner in the BFF pack go off your meds at the same time - or is it just coincidence you both seem to go ballistic when the moon's full?

As I see it, you and your l'il buddies don't like having your proclamations challenged, and when they are you bellow like wounded bulls and claim you're being abused, right after goring the opposition into submission.

And that's about as nasty as I ever get. Sorry for mixing the metaphors.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Bigfootery is a scam and Lu, SweatyYeti & Melissa are its self-appointed foot soldiers.

Ah, glad to see you're back to your old self. You were far too polite; I was beginning to worry about you.

Would you now like to make some absurd and totally unfounded claim that people make money at this?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

Would you now like to make some absurd and totally unfounded claim that people make money at this?

Oh I wouldn't suggest that you guys have made any money. You are web volunteers.

I can make a founded claim that any amount of money made by Bigfooters Patterson, Krantz, Green, Coleman, Meldrum, etc. on Bigfoot propaganda was/is money in their pocket. I don't care how small the amount is; it was earned because of their belief/advocacy in Bigfoot.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Oh I wouldn't suggest that you guys have made any money. You are web volunteers.

I can make a founded claim that any amount of money made by Bigfooters Patterson, Krantz, Green, Coleman, Meldrum, etc. on Bigfoot propaganda was/is money in their pocket. I don't care how small the amount is; it was earned because of their belief/advocacy in Bigfoot.

Thom Powell has stated emphatically there's no money in book publication (he's written one; he should know). Green jokingly suggested Coleman must be very rich - he's written 86. Grover's research cost him at least $100,000 in expenses and lost wages.Roger's book was self-published at a cost of $500 put up by his brother-in-law.

If researchers chose to bring their results to the public rather than just keep the notes in the filing cabinet, we should, I think be grateful they have done this.

Have you read any of them yet, or do you just think you know all about this from your limited reading of the web?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Bob Heironimus apparently walks strangely (like Patty) in real life. Friends, family and residents of Yakima have always known him for his funky way of walking. When you see it, you swear it looks like Patty as a human. I think Bob walks like Patty because he was Patty.

Didn't Diogenes say this board no longer supports BH because the evidence is tainted, or words to that effect? Could it be you don't all think alike? Are you not all to be painted with the same brush?

BH claimed Roger filmed from the back of his horse. Just try to line things up with a camera angle like that!

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

Quote:

Bigfootery is a scam and Lu, SweatyYeti & Melissa are its self-appointed foot soldiers.

You got me good there, William.

Note to self: Bigfootery is a scam-aroni. Must find scam artists responsible and have them brought to justice, or to the ice cream store...whichever is closest.

Quote:

Bob Heironimus apparently walks strangely (like Patty) in real life.

Is there a video clip of that anywhere online? I'd love to see a clip of Bob "What was I wearing?" Heironimus walking like Patty.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

Didn't Diogenes say this board no longer supports BH because the evidence is tainted, or words to that effect? Could it be you don't all think alike? Are you not all to be painted with the same brush?

BH claimed Roger filmed from the back of his horse. Just try to line things up with a camera angle like that!

I never did support BH .. He does walk like Patty, though ..

Considering that we haven't found a Bigfoot that walks like Patty,
we can safely say there is more evidence that BH was Patty, than there is
that Patty was a real Bigfoot...

[tube]

Yes, I can understand why a person who has never studied desiccation ridges might claim these features are "folded skin". Because they are so obviously not dermal ridges you have to come up with another sort of fantasy to account for them. We see the same sort of desperate attempt to define the irregular surface textures seen in the Skookum elk cast.

Funny, I didn't know "folded skin" contained little islands and bifurcations...

No, what we see here are absolutely classic desiccation ridges, which usually, but not always, occur on the outer periphery of casts. Note how they present in an "annular" way. By this I mean that they flow in parallel with the plane of the cast, but perpendicularly to a line that extends from the point of first slurry impact to the ridge. They are "annular" in that they cluster roughly in "rings" around the point of first slurry impact.

What we have here is the LATERAL side of CA-19.

[tube]

It is indeed ironic that it was Melissa who questioned why we don't see ridges on the periphery of CA-19. When I spoke in Jefferson TX I didn't have a good answer, and I said so. Well, this was before I was able to examine CA-19 in Dr. Meldrum's lab. Logically, there are only two possibilities; CA-19 is the original cast, or it is a copy. Meldrum claims it is the original cast. Green says the original is lost. Regardless of who is correct, the adhered substrate on CA-19 functions as a superb medium with which to contrast the ridges. If CA-19 is not the original, it is surely a good copy.

The fact is, CA-19 exhibits better textural detail than either of the two cast copies I possess. So in fact Melissa's criticism is answered right here; better copies (or the original) cast DO indeed exhibit ridges that cluster around the periphery of the cast, as seen here in the "heel" on the medial side.

CLASSIC desiccation ridges:

[LAL]

Do you have a close-up of the ball of CA-19? You seem to have shown us just about everything but that.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Is there a video clip of that anywhere online? I'd love to see a clip of Bob "What was I wearing?" Heironimus walking like Patty.

There was a great one on the KTAU, Portland, Oregon, site but the story has been archived in abbreviated form. The best was Bob in a Morris suit built for the recreation on Kal Korff's site. (The still was from the clip.) The site is now back, evidently rebuilt, but I couldn't find the clip. How strange.

It was hilarious.

[LAL]

Tube, from your post

Originally Posted by tube

Pumice! Yeah, I didn't have to buy Spill Magic--I could just get some pumice! I can't remember what I did next: I'm sure I searched the Internet for a source of pumice in Seattle. Eventually I found Seattle Pottery Supply. My memory is that they told me that they labeled their pumice as "volcanic ash."

it sounds like you were using pumice all along rather than actual volcanic ash - and knew that. You've accused Melissa of not following your directions, but nowhere do I see where you told her to use pumice. Throughout this thread

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...c=11363&st=225)

when she started her experiments, you repeatedly told her to use volcanic ash, not pumice.

I've asked her to comment and this was her reply:

"I could find no reference to him telling me to use Pumice,(May 19 2006, 03:31 PM I received the Pumice tip from an employee of the pottery store, who said I could look at pumice which is material from a volcano, but its not as fine as volcanic ash (I was told that over the phone and thats when I typed this post)

May 17 2006, 08:44 PM

Ok tube - I will do this "challenge" --- question ,, what if I get the same results?

In fact - I have an idea. Ok, to the store I go this weekend ...
_____
(I actually went over to the store on a week day.)

So, I went to this pottery store and after reading what Tube had written about the substrate being lightweight, and the consistancy of Powdered Sugar - I knew this wasnt the stuff (or so I thought). Thats when I posted the very first post you see from me dated May 18th "As Fate would have it".

I was jazzed by the idea of the Pumice (although tube never said a word to me about it) but even the store owner who does all the measurements said whomever told me over the phone that Pumice was comparable to Volcanic Ash, was wrong. He showed me Pumice - and I didnt think in a million years that stuff would work at all. Wish I knew then what I know now.

______________________________________

May 17 2006, 07:47 PM Post #208

Tube

We don't have the original cast. I accept that the copies I've seen and own are accurate representations of the original. Therefore I examine

the copies to try to understand how the textures on the original arose.

I'm satisfied that the textures on the original cast arose entirely as a result of the casting artifact process. Now exactly what the mechanism of

this process is, I'm still trying to work that out. Perhaps the expansion of these cements is involved. I'm satisfied that wicking, lack of

adhesion, and plasticity of the substrate are all necessary conditions.

I propose that you will understand how ridiculously simple this all really is by simply doing this test for yourself. Zip on down to the local

pottery supply store and buy 10 or 20 pounds of volcanic ash. Dump it into a big turkey roasting pan you buy at the local Goodwill for $3.50.

Put rubber gloves on. Lightly tamp down a big foot shaped depression into the volcanic ash. Include toes so you will see the "ridge flow

pattern" as it winds around the pressure ridge that separates the toes from the ball. Mix your plaster of Paris slightly on the thick side and

keep mixing for a minute or so longer than normal. Pour into the center of the "track" and keep pouring into the same spot in the center of the

track until the track is filled with slurry. Pull the cast an hour later. Let cure overnight. Very gently remove any remaining ash. You will see

"dermals" for your very own self, and hopefully you will get a "ridge flow pattern" that closely resembles the Onion Mountain cast.

You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free!

Good luck!
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________

May 18 2006, 08:05 AM Post #215


Melissa:

Tube - As fate would have it - I can not just simply "Pop" into my local Pottery Supply store and pick up a 20 pound bag of Volcanic Ash

Yes, this does frustrate me.. lmao. I already had the roasting pan - so that was the easy part.

But, this is not over, just a minor bump in the substrate. LMAO. (I crack myself up!!)
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

May 19 2006, 01:43 PM Post # 241


Tube:

No, I've yet to get to the point of doing splash casting. I made the copy just by pouring the slurry into the mold. I did make a mistake which I

mentioned earlier in this thread in using too much "Pam" brand nonstick spray as a release compound. This resulted in a couple of hairline

fractures on the cast. Fortunately this did not affect the ridge textures that concern us.

Since an elastomeric female mold will not wick or deform as would real world soil, you really don't need to go to "splash casting", you can

just pour the slurry right in.

Good luck on your volcanic ash casting tests! Since I don't work with pottery, I don't know the ins and outs of the pottery business. The

volcanic ash I'm buying here in Seattle is very fine, at least as fine as powdered sugar or wheat flour. Make sure what you get is a very fine

powder.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Tubes first post after Melissa's first set of tests with TriCalcium Phosphate

May 20 2006, 02:59 PM Post #246


Tube:

Some substrates will allow formation of casting artifacts and some will not. This is why I recommended you try volcanic ash, as it has worked

for me. I have no idea if this other material would work or not.

Remember, at some point you need to run a control, in which you create a foot shaped "track" using gloved hands so the track has a known

smooth texture. Any surface textures that result from the cast you make in the track must be artifacts.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Post 261 May 22 2006, 01:35 PM

Excerpt from post

Tube:

Also, I would reiterate that you should experiment with substrates that indeed can create casting artifacts such as volcanic ash (which may also be sold as pumice, I believe) or fly ash. You live in Texas so I know you have no shortage of dry soils to test too. If you absolutely can't find volcanic ash where you are, I can arrange to send you some from here in Seattle. Fly ash you should be able to obtain cheaply at places that sell concrete and concrete supplies. Fly ash will produce casting artifacts with Hydrocal B-11 but not plaster of Paris or Ultracal 30."

Now, what about those directions?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by LAL

Tube, from your post

it sounds like you were using pumice all along rather than actual volcanic ash - and knew that. You've accused Melissa of not following your directions, but nowhere do I see where you told her to use pumice. Throughout this thread

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...c=11363&st=225)

when she started her experiments, you repeatedly told her to use volcanic ash, not pumice.

Uh, except where he suggested it might be sold as pumice...

Originally Posted by LAL

_______________________ ______________________________________

Post 261 May 22 2006, 01:35 PM

Excerpt from post

Tube:

Also, I would reiterate that you should experiment with substrates that indeed can create casting artifacts such as volcanic ash (which may also be sold as pumice, I believe) or fly ash. You live in Texas so I know you have no shortage of dry soils to test too.

Not to mention..

Quote:

If you absolutely can't find volcanic ash where you are, I can arrange to send you some from here in Seattle.

Did Melissa take him up on his offer ???


If I remember correctly, Melissa was more intent on arguing that Onion Mt. soil was not volcanic ash, and whether or not the water should be heated, than trying to actually duplicate Matt's work... ( follow his instructions )

I think it was great that Melissa did not get any artifacts.. She should be the one to call on, if you need an artifact free, Bigfoot cast ..

[tube]

[quote=Diogenes;2312027]

Did Melissa take him up on his offer ???


QUOTE]

That would be a big negatory, my good man...

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by LAL

There are times when I have to wonder if you and your partner in the BFF pack go off your meds at the same time - or is it just coincidence you both seem to go ballistic when the moon's full?

That is absolutely uncalled for. I don't know what is acceptable on this forum but before someone is degraded in this manner I would expect some facts backing up such an accusation.
Back this up Lu, or are you just throwing dirt. Don't play dirty unless you are willing to get dirty yourself.

I, and a very good friend of mine, have been the target of a similar slander by a prominent bigfoot zealot (MM) and although that isn't a big deal I see similarities in this very personal attack.

Lu, you and your buddy SweatyYeti/Coolfoot seem to consider yourself superior in some way to the unwashed, but I'll tell you straight out, you know very little of the bigfoot phenomenon other than what you read in a book and more importantly the phenomenon of bigfooters themselves. Quote all the "experts" you want to but it won't change your gullibility nor your near religious zealousy. Believe me you aren't helping. For every good objective, open minded observer of this subject there are twenty of you who ruin any chance of any resolution. What do you hope to gain by insulting someone who you perceive to be your enemy? Back up your claims!!!

I won't argue with you anymore on BFF because the rhetoric that you and your supporters spew drown out any attempt at reasonable discussion. I was even hesitant to post here because I'm sure somehow you will spin the words of anyone you consider antagonistic to your cause against them.

Open your eyes Lu, you just might surprise yourself and find out, despite your self important view of yourself, that you just might be wrong.

International Grandmaster my a$$...prove it! You would expect nothing less from anyone else...right?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

Thom Powell has stated emphatically there's no money in book publication (he's written one; he should know). Green jokingly suggested Coleman must be very rich - he's written 86. Grover's research cost him at least $100,000 in expenses and lost wages. Roger's book was self-published at a cost of $500 put up by his brother-in-law.

You mention that nobody makes much money from Bigfoot, then you will point out that Meldrum's new book ranks high at Amazon. We also know that Meldrum has received at least $70K in funding. Powell wrote about Bigfoot being able to read minds and teleport, yes?

Quote:

If researchers chose to bring their results to the public rather than just keep the notes in the filing cabinet, we should, I think be grateful they have done this.

But if their research is about the existence of a non-existent animal ... I am not grateful that it gets pulled from a file cabinet. We can't even get our hands on the good stuff. The PGF is copyrighted and those who have decent early copies seem to be holding them tight. Why? Is Patty Patterson trying to get every penny she can from it? Does she want to prevent others from profiting from it? But if there is no money to be made from Bigfoot anyway - what is she worried about losing?

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

Didn't Diogenes say this board no longer supports BH because the evidence is tainted, or words to that effect? Could it be you don't all think alike? Are you not all to be painted with the same brush?

You already know that I think Bob Heironimus was Patty. I saw the KTAU footage of BH walking in street clothes. The dude walks just like Patty did. He has been walking like that every single day in Yakima; and most importantly he was walking like that when Krantz was saying that nobody could walk like that. Imagine if Krantz had watched BH walk just like Patty, and then also known that he was buddies with Patterson & Gimlin and that he was a known actor in Roger's Bigfoot documentary. Holy crap!

Quote:

BH claimed Roger filmed from the back of his horse. Just try to line things up with a camera angle like that!

Patterson may have started out filming BH (in the costume) from horseback and then leapt from the horse to simulate being thrown off. That first bit may have been edited out (maybe it looked too phoney), and all we were ever allowed to see is the part where Roger is already on the ground. Heironimus might remember the part where Roger starts filming from his mount. It could also be part of the reason why P&G differed on their account of the horse throw.

Many skeptics have been wondering if anything was edited out of the true original film. Heironimus might be revealing an answer to this without even really trying. Anyone who watches the PGF can clearly see that Roger is on the ground after the initial camera shaking. Are we to believe that Heironimus never watched the PGF, and therefore would not have seen this fact? Is he so stupid that he would go and say that Roger was mounted during the filming even though Bob can see that he was on the ground? Or, is Bob talking about when Patterson was mounted and filming? I guess we can't know.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

That is absolutely uncalled for. I don't know what is acceptable on this forum but before someone is degraded in this manner I would expect some facts backing up such an accusation.

Welcome to the board. I take it you've missed a lot of posts. Check out the flame wars.

The moon was full, or nearly so, when I posted. I checked the almanac. I could have made it a lot worse.

Quote:

Back this up Lu, or are you just throwing dirt. Don't play dirty unless you are willing to get dirty yourself.

I've already posted links to some of tube's offensve comments on BFF. See the recent rants from his l'il buddy here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...c=16440&st=325

If I'd responded, the thread would have been closed.

Quote:

I, and a very good friend of mine, have been the target of a similar slander by a prominent bigfoot zealot (MM) and although that isn't a big deal I see similarities in this very personal attack.

Not unlike the full scale attack you and JimF launched on CF for doing nothing more than posting his pictures and supporting his POV? You two got suspended finally for that didn't you? You did about the same to Rick Noll when he came to share insider infomation on MD. Now maybe you know how they felt.

Someone told me you like to pick fights. I didn't believe it until I saw it. I still thought you were a great guy because you stood up for me when Yetifan started using me as a straight man. Maybe you are a great guy. I don't know.

Quote:

Lu, you and your buddy SweatyYeti/Coolfoot

You called CF the biggest moron on the board. He is my buddy. He turned me on to some great software, coached me by e-mail, lent me DVDs by mail...... We've been cyber friends since he thanked me for my support on the MD footage.

Quote:

seem to consider yourself superior in some way to the unwashed, but I'll tell you straight out, you know very little of the bigfoot phenomenon other than what you read in a book and more importantly the phenomenon of bigfooters themselves.

How many times have I stated I used to live in Skamania County, Washington? It's still one of the hottest spots in the country, I believe. I've slipped on a log and dipped my cameras in a stream in North Carolina, too, while marvelling how much like Oregon it is.

I've talked with people who are by no stretch of the imagination "Bigfooters". That kind of opened my eyes. I didn't think there was anything interesting east of the Mississippi.

I don't know if there's anything going on around here or not, but I do know we won't know if we don't check it out.

Quote:

Quote all the "experts" you want to but it won't change your gullibility nor your near religious zealousy.

Oh, nonsense. I haven't read anything that far off the mark since a poster on AOL said I'd made this my religion and Bigfoot is my god. He'd been reading supermarket paper stuff about Bigfoot civilizations in another dimension and thought I subscribe.

I'm interested in the phenomenon and I've gone to the trouble and expense recently of buying some books and DVDs (Greg Long included), but I have more DVDs with Tom Hanks in them than I do Peter Byrne.

It's one of many things I'm interested in. I went through an entire party last Friday without even mentioning it, although I did hold forth on music, Charles Darwin, heat shock proteins, macrobiotics and the fossil record. It was a good party. No small talk.

Quote:

Believe me you aren't helping. For every good objective, open minded observer of this subject there are twenty of you who ruin any chance of any resolution.

Really? Got statistics o that do you? Back up your claims.

Quote:

What do you hope to gain by insulting someone who you perceive to be your enemy? Back up your claims!!!

I don't consider either tube or wolftrax my enemies, or at least I didn't until the MIM debates. In fact when tube first came here on the "Matt Crowley Shoots Down Dermal Ridges" thread I thought he was a cyber friend and welcomed him with open cyber arms. He cautioned the sceptics about taking the implications of his work too far, and since has done the same thing himself, IMO.

What do they gain by ganging up on people who dare to question their pronouncements? Is that being objective or is the idea to run their critics off the board?

Read some of their insults before you decide I'm starting all this or that I haven't put up with months or years of it before finally getting fed up.

One of the posters on your board was so insulting to Melissa regarding her association with Rick Noll I couldn't understand why the post wasn't removed and the member banned.

Quote:

I won't argue with you anymore on BFF

I'm crushed. I wondered where you been. I know you were being looked at as a "troublemaker". For awhile I thought you'd been banned.

Quote:

because the rhetoric that you and your supporters spew drown out any attempt at reasonable discussion. I was even hesitant to post here because I'm sure somehow you will spin the words of anyone you consider antagonistic to your cause against them.

Well, no one asked you to post here. Or did they? Ever wonder why I don't post on BFD or SRI anymore?

What would BFF do without proponents? Should it just be given over to the kids and Larry Lund's supporters?

Here I'm considered a "wacko" and a "woo", so flail away. You won't be able to top some of the stuff that's already been said.

Quote:

Open your eyes Lu, you just might surprise yourself and find out, despite your self important view of yourself, that you just might be wrong.

About what, specifically? I've been wrong more than once, and retract when I am. I usually thank the person for the correction. I've also been accused of being wrong when I wasn't, but I don't get upset about it. Life goes on.

Quote:

International Grandmaster my a$$...prove it! You would expect nothing less from anyone else...right?

Sorry, I'm no longer in touch with him or I'd post an affadavit. He nicely said he'd played the best Northwest Women's Champion and I was a far stronger player than she. Then his cousin told me who he was. I was so psyched out I never beat him again.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

What would BFF do without proponents? Should it just be given over to the kids and Larry Lund's supporters?

What has the BFF done with proponents? Nobody has confirmed Bigfoot, but legions of posters have seen it. We regularly read of announcements of amateur expeditions to search for BF in which invitations are made for others to join the group outing. But none of this has worked, even when they seem to focus on "hotspots". Hotspots are always coldspots because they don't result in any confirmations. As far as confirmation productivity is concerned... it might not matter if the BFF is "given over to the kids". I guess a kid can find a dead Bigfoot too. So could any kid who has never heard of the BFF.

How is a forum like the BFF supposed to sustain or evolve after each decade rolls by with no Bigfoot confirmation? Will the regular proponents look like Jonestown zombies that are doing nothing other than waiting for that cup of Kool-Aid?

"No! I will not drink that poison and cease my belief. Just last week Bubba saw a really big one stalking around down in the hollow. Bubba don't lie." SquatchMeister, Bigfoot Forums, February 23, 2056.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

You mention that nobody makes much money from Bigfoot, then you will point out that Meldrum's new book ranks high at Amazon. We also know that Meldrum has received at least $70K in funding.

I think that's great. I hope he'll earn enough to take a leave of absense and spend more time in field work. Remember, he was funding his own research before he finally got some academic funding. This is a first, and tribute to his methodology.

Quote:

Powell wrote about Bigfoot being able to read minds and teleport, yes?

You might want to actually read Powell. I was pleasantly surprised. He's a science teacher. He wrote about subjective impressions from a witness that had to do with a sense of being about to be killed if he took the picture and a sense of the animals changing position very quickly.

He didn't mention possible temporal lobe epilepsy as a cause of sudden "disappearances", but I think that's quite possible. Even rabbits "disappear" in forests. I don't think most people think they're paranormal beings.

Powell has a lot of good information on cameras, BTW, and presents a good lesson in astronomy and detection of extrasolar planets at the beginning of the chapter where he talks about the UFO related stuff. He makes it pretty clear visitations are highly unlikely, but states he doesn't know hat to make of some of it.

I mentioned the rabbits on my drive earlier. I thought it might be good test to keep a camera in the car and try to time myself on how long it would take me to try to take a picture. Since I thought of this I haven't seen a rabbit.

From this I conclude that rabbits are paranomal and can read my mind.

Quote:

But if their research is about the existence of a non-existent animal ... I am not grateful that it gets pulled from a file cabinet.

If it's about a non-existant animal, Meldrum, et al, wouldn't be wasting his time. Byrne thought the "mystery" would be resolved in 2-5 years given the funding. He was writing in 1975.

Quote:

We can't even get our hands on the good stuff. The PGF is copyrighted and those who have decent early copies seem to be holding them tight. Why? Is Patty Patterson trying to get every penny she can from it? Does she want to prevent others from profiting from it? But if there is no money to be made from Bigfoot anyway - what is she worried about losing?

She got burned a lot and the original was held up in copyright issues for years. Roger wanted her to have omething after he died and what she got was legal tangles because he oversold the rights. Dahinden spnt a lot of time and money trying to straighten it all out. She doesn't have the original. She has some rights, Dahinden's sons have others.

Apparently their sons were harrassed at school. I can see why she might want little to do with the whole issue.

Do you want her to lend you the original or something? There's a forthcoming book by Dave Murphy that reportedly has extensive interviews with her; perhaps they'll shed some light on her position.

John Green said the LMS version was taken off a working copy made from the original. That's probably as close as you'll get unless he'd be willing to lend you his first generation copy. How would he know you and Greg wouldn't put splices in it?

[LAL]

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

LAL wrote:

"Actor duplicates Patty walk" is a hollow victory for the skeptics.

Actually, I didn't write that. :P

[LAL]

Originally Posted by tube

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Did Melissa take him up on his offer ???

That would be a big negatory, my good man...

So, in effect, you were telling her to use chocolate chips, but while she was using Skittles, you were using macadamia nuts? It's not too late to send her whatever dessicant it was you were using.

What stands out for me is that neither of you have been able to get the lines using Onion Mountain soil.

[LAL]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

You already know that I think Bob Heironimus was Patty.

No. I thought Diogenes speaks for the board. He sounded like he did.

Quote:

I saw the KTAU footage of BH walking in street clothes.

Me too. I've posted it.

Quote:

The dude walks just like Patty did. He has been walking like that every single day in Yakima; and most importantly he was walking like that when Krantz was saying that nobody could walk like that. Imagine if Krantz had watched BH walk just like Patty, and then also known that he was buddies with Patterson & Gimlin and that he was a known actor in Roger's Bigfoot documentary. Holy crap!

Buddies? More like neighbors.

His IM index isn't 88 and he said he wore his own clothes under the suit. He was much thinner then. You're forgetting about that rotating knee. That wasn't confirmed until the making of LMS.

C'mon. He didn't even know where the film was shot. And then there's the witness who heard him talking with his barroom buddies about how he was going do this. He was trying to sell his story before Greg Long bit.

Quote:

Patterson may have started out filming BH (in the costume) from horseback and then leapt from the horse to simulate being thrown off.

That's not what BH was saying.

Quote:

That first bit may have been edited out (maybe it looked too phoney), and all we were ever allowed to see is the part where Roger is already on the ground. Heironimus might remember the part where Roger starts filming from his mount. It could also be part of the reason why P&G differed on their account of the horse throw.

Dang, I miss Dfoot. He would've liked that. Roger didn't get the camera out until after the horse went down. Gimlin had his eyes on the creature, was busy keeping his own horse under control and may just not have seen what was going on with Roger. A small quarter horse could have been down and up in an instant.

Quote:

Many skeptics have been wondering if anything was edited out of the true original film.

Only for the last thirty-nine years, I'd say. You think you're the first?

Quote:

Heironimus might be revealing an answer to this without even really trying. Anyone who watches the PGF can clearly see that Roger is on the ground after the initial camera shaking. Are we to believe that Heironimus never watched the PGF, and therefore would not have seen this fact? Is he so stupid

That could be it.

Quote:

that he would go and say that Roger was mounted during the filming even though Bob can see that he was on the ground? Or, is Bob talking about when Patterson was mounted and filming? I guess we can't know.

If I can find the link again you can see for yourself.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by Blackdog

I won't argue with you anymore on BFF because the rhetoric that you and your supporters spew drown out any attempt at reasonable discussion. I was even hesitant to post here because I'm sure somehow you will spin the words of anyone you consider antagonistic to your cause against them.

Welcome aboard BD, and be very careful what you say to LAL or she'll filter you.

RayG

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

Quote:

Blackdog wrote:

Quote:

I, and a very good friend of mine, have been the target of a similar slander by a prominent bigfoot zealot (MM) and although that isn't a big deal I see similarities in this very personal attack.

Not unlike the full scale attack you and JimF launched on CF for doing nothing more than posting his pictures and supporting his POV?

I wish I had quotes of those verbal attacks handy...I'd post them...for all to enjoy.
I made a simple claim...that there are unreported Bigfoot sightings out there. Just something for people to consider while reading Jimf's study of reported Bigfoot sightings. Lu confirmed my claim, from her own personal experiences talking to people who told her they'd seen one.
And Blackdog and Jimf went off on a tirade, insulting my intelligence like there was no tomorrow. Just a little verbal assault...a little verbal violence. That's all it was...and for making a TRUE statement, no less.
Sooo....let's re-cap some of what Blackdog just posted.......

Quote:

That is absolutely uncalled for. I don't know what is acceptable on this forum but before someone is degraded...

Boo hoo, Blackdog....is it wrong to degrade someone?

Quote:

I was even hesitant to post here because I'm sure somehow you will spin the words of anyone you consider antagonistic to your cause against them.

No need for me to spin your's and Jimf's words, Blackdog. There was only ONE way to interpret those babies!
I can post them here later, but it may take me a while to find them. Do you remember which thread they're in.
If you do, I'd appreciate your help.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by LAL

I think that's great. I hope he'll earn enough to take a leave of absense and spend more time in field work. Remember, he was funding his own research before he finally got some academic funding. This is a first, and tribute to his methodology.

He has been accused of using poor scientific methodology (on Bigfoot evidence) by other scientists. His funding is coming from an individual at Fidelity, who apparently thinks he is on the right track. It's not like the whole world suddenly realized that Meldrum is the modern Galileo and then emptied their pockets for him.

I'm curious what Meldrum's beliefs are. He has presented some ambiguity on this in recent interviews because he has said different things. Is his usage of the funds directed towards confirming a creature that he already knows exists ... or is he directing it towards a search to determine if the creature does really exist? That might sound like a meaningless semantic question, but it is not. Because it makes a difference on how Meldrum proceeds with his research and funding. If his belief in BF existence is certain, then he might be expected to continually solicit and accept any funding to confirm what he already knows. If he is uncertain of Bigfoot's existence, he may be inclined to formulate an exit plan at some point when he feels that reality has pushed the "needle" far towards the probability that Bigfoot does not exist. I can't seem to figure out where Jeff Meldrum stands.

Quote:

You might want to actually read Powell. I was pleasantly surprised. He's a science teacher. He wrote about subjective impressions from a witness that had to do with a sense of being about to be killed if he took the picture and a sense of the animals changing position very quickly. He didn't mention possible temporal lobe epilepsy as a cause of sudden "disappearances", but I think that's quite possible. Even rabbits "disappear" in forests. I don't think most people think they're paranormal beings. Powell has a lot of good information on cameras, BTW, and presents a good lesson in astronomy and detection of extrasolar planets at the beginning of the chapter where he talks about the UFO related stuff. He makes it pretty clear visitations are highly unlikely, but states he doesn't know hat to make of some of it. I mentioned the rabbits on my drive earlier. I thought it might be good test to keep a camera in the car and try to time myself on how long it would take me to try to take a picture. Since I thought of this I haven't seen a rabbit. From this I conclude that rabbits are paranomal and can read my mind.

What does any of that have to do with the question of the existence of Bigfoot? Are we all supposed to think, "Since rabbits can seem to disappear, then Bigfoot might not be a myth."? How can anything Powell said bring us to a better understanding of Bigfoot?

Quote:

If it's about a non-existant animal, Meldrum, et al, wouldn't be wasting his time. Byrne thought the "mystery" would be resolved in 2-5 years given the funding. He was writing in 1975.

Lu! Can't you possibly open your mind to the possibility that Meldrum et al are mistaken? Jeff is a smart guy and I am fully prepared to grant him the deserved honor of being wrong, instead of daft.

Quote:

She got burned a lot and the original was held up in copyright issues for years. Roger wanted her to have omething after he died and what she got was legal tangles because he oversold the rights. Dahinden spnt a lot of time and money trying to straighten it all out. She doesn't have the original. She has some rights, Dahinden's sons have others. Apparently their sons were harrassed at school. I can see why she might want little to do with the whole issue.

Screw all of that. These folks have film and photographic evidence of an undiscovered wild North American bipedal primate. Why the hell don't they "do the right thing" and turn this stuff over to a scientific institution for purposes of research? Does Patty Patterson believe that Bigfoot exists? I guess it doesn't matter.

Quote:

Do you want her to lend you the original or something? There's a forthcoming book by Dave Murphy that reportedly has extensive interviews with her; perhaps they'll shed some light on her position.

I would love to see her turn over all of her memorabilia on the PGF to a public trust at a scientific institution. The same is true for the original Cibachromes (not copies) held by the Dahindens. Additionally, I would love to see Green and others donate their early film copies to the same cause. What are they all waiting for?

Quote:

John Green said the LMS version was taken off a working copy made from the original. That's probably as close as you'll get unless he'd be willing to lend you his first generation copy.

Is he willing to lend his copy to anyone for a digital film frame by film frame modern reproduction (for public examination and research)?

Quote:

How would he know you and Greg wouldn't put splices in it?

I can't speak for Greg, but Green would need to watch me. I'll have a pair of sharpened Fiskars ready when Green gives me his precious celluloid. I'm part of a vast conspiracy to prevent Bigfoot from being real. I wear black.

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

Quote:

He is my buddy. He turned me on to some great software, coached me by e-mail, lent me DVDs by mail...... We've been cyber friends since he thanked me for my support on the MD footage.

You're a good friend, Lu . It's been a real pleasure "talking" with you...and helping you out.

Quote:

You called CF the biggest moron on the board.

It's interesting...this moron contributed something very interesting to the BFF with regards to the Memorial Day video. I had noticed, from watching the video in super-slow motion over and over again...that the object that's lifted up appeared to be lifting up under it's own power.
I wasn't quite sure about it...but when I put together a short, stabilized, animated gif of the lift, it was very clear that the object did indeed lift up AFTER the subject's hand had let go of it.
A small detail that says a LOT...the lifted object could very well be alive....an infant. It gives the MD video a distinctly higher "probability" of being a legitimate video of a Bigfoot creature carrying an infant.

The funny thing is...being a moron...and a BIG one at that ....how is it that I noticed this before anyone else...including Blackdog??
The people who produced the LMS dvd didn't even analyse the lift part of the video.
Not too bad for an "asparagus brain*".......I must say. (*Copyright 2007, kitakaze.)

[Melissa]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Uh, except where he suggested it might be sold as pumice...

Not to mention..

Did Melissa take him up on his offer ???

If I remember correctly, Melissa was more intent on arguing that Onion Mt. soil was not volcanic ash, and whether or not the water should be heated, than trying to actually duplicate Matt's work... ( follow his instructions )

I think it was great that Melissa did not get any artifacts.. She should be the one to call on, if you need an artifact free, Bigfoot cast ..

Read again Diogenes, the comment from Tube about the volcanic ash he used came after I had already begun my tests. And I quote:

Originally Posted by Tube May 22 2006, 01:35 PM

Also, I would reiterate that you should experiment with substrates that indeed can create casting artifacts such as volcanic ash (which may also be sold as pumice, I believe) or fly ash.

Mentioning that prior to my trip to the Pottery Store would have been very helpful considering he already knew he was not using Volcanic Ash, and never had. So I am assuming his claims of using "Virgin Volcanic Ash" are untrue as well. Pumice and Volcanic Ash are two totally different things.

Originally Posted by Tube

I obtained rather spectacular desiccation ridges in this cast. This would have been about March or April 2005. But by this time I had run out of Spill Magic, I went back to Wal-Mart for more, but they were out.

I did not become involved in any Bigfoot Message board or Research until October of 2005, my experiments and Tubes "Challenge" did not happen until May of 2006 - dont say he did not know he gave me misleading information, because I have the timeline to prove it (his own words no less) Get as angry as you like and start the next round of bashing, but its the truth and people who live in glass houses SHOULD

NOT throw stones.

Put yourself in my shoes. My interest in achieving these artifacts was genuine, I hoped I would. But, Tube is wrong to bash me for what he says is not following his directions when he clearly set up his own definition for what the directions would be. Yeah, it does make me a bit angry to know I was mislead - and now he seems happy to beat me up, yet takes no responsibility for what he did. Thats pretty pathetic, and something I would NEVER do to anyone - skeptical or otherwise.

Your right Diogenes, but you keep missing the reason why I felt it necessary to use the Soil from Onion Mountain. There was NO Volcanic Ash noted in soil samples taken in this area a year prior to the casting of the Onion Mountain Tracks. Why would I want to use Volcanic Ash?

Tubes work was specifically pointing at the Onion Mountain Cast. Yes, he was able to create artifacts - in Volcanic Ash ( he claimed, but we now know it was Pumice), but that says nothing about the soil from Onion Mountain. There are over 50,000 soil types in this country, am I to assume volcanic ash speaks to all those conditions? No, and certainly not Onion Mountain Soil. While the soil from Onion Mountain has all the byproducts one would expect after volcanic ash has broken down - there is no volcanic ash period.

Oh, and Diogenes - Tube and his friend made the 100 degree water an issue, not me. That was their second complaint, that I had not heated my water to 100 degrees just like tube, so that was not me, that was actually Tube.. I did do experiments with 100 degree water and still did not achieve the same results as tube - which did not make Tube or his friend any happier.

Tube,

you may call me as many names as you like, go ahead and beat me up verbally it only proves one thing - you can not speak to the work I have done. When someone gets defensive in a debate, it usually means they have a weak argument. I appreciate your coming forward and telling us you never used volcanic ash, as that puts a whole new spin on things. I can get pumice, right here in Texas. One thing you can not deny is to date I have not been able to produce "crowley lines" - and for many that speaks to whether or not there could be dermal ridges on the cast from Onion Mountain.

You wont stop me from doing my work, you can insult me all you like - I sat here last night and laughed my butt off reading your rantings. No where did I create a story about you Hiking up Mt. St. Helen's to get ash, you started that when you said, you now had in your possession "Virgin Volcanic Ash" - you even admitted that was a poor choice of words. Do you think I am the only person who caught onto that? You should have been more precise in your use of words, but I NEVER accused you of doing anything illegal - prove it, lets see the direct quote, a friend of yours tried and failed miserably. You appear to be grasping for anything to throw, to see if it will stick, and its really very laughable.

You were sent soil from the very same area of Onion Mountain, you did one test and called it quits - and in doing so, validated my work. I wish you had continued but you chose to stop and claim you couldn't get your "artifacts" because of the pine needles in the soil etc, well that may be - if there are no dermals to capture, but obviously it is possible to cast dermals in this soil as I have casts with my dermals after casting my own foot prints in this soil ( I even have the pretty pictures to prove it).

I have listed my sources, and I could careless what you might think about whether I should post their names. I respect the wishes of the people I talk to who tell me very clearly they do not want to be named, or involved. That is well within their rights. As I have said - you can call these agencies, I did list them - and If I can come up with the information by calling these places, so can you (I didn't have a name when I dialed the phone numbers).

I followed your instructions - maybe you should have told me something other than "It needs to be very fine, as fine as powdered sugar or wheat flour", using the word Pumice would have helped. And, who are you kidding "I think they call it pumice" ------ Hell you knew that, you didn't think anything, you knew it. And, do you mean to tell me your first tests were done in a cleaning product? Is that what your saying? I am kinda confused on that point. Hell, I should have just bought a bag of kitty litter then. Point to one direct quote where you told me to use "Volcanic Ash (Pumice) BEFORE my tests began. You never once said you were actually using Pumice - and that you can not deny, as you just admitted it. Volcanic Ash was what you told me to look for (or qualities similar to it) when the whole time you knew you were not using it, so I was out there like an idiot looking for Volcanic Ash, how much fun did you have laughing behind my back? And you have the audacity to question my integrity. Glass houses, glass houses.

You are not the final word on anything - neither am I. One day, someone smarter than the both of us will come along and show us both what we are doing wrong, so you better toughen up and get that skin a little thicker. Anyone who reads the specific thread on the BFF on Dermal Ridges and Casting Artifacts will clearly see - you started this ongoing battle, not me. And you continue it to this day, infact most of the time when someone has disagreed with you - you attack them. I have never flat out called you a liar, you have misquoted and misrepresented my work to people, but that is not calling you a liar - stop being so dramatic. I hold no Ill will toward you whatsoever, I am sorry you think simply because I have not validated your work I somehow think less of you and only want to argue with you.. Get over yourself. Your not that important. When you say things like that you sound like you are above reproach - NEWSLFASH, your not. I expect questions about my work - tough ones, and If I can, I do answer them, if I do not have the answer, I say that too. I am certainly not perfect, nor are you (did you ever talk to Ray Crowe about the Onion Mountain Cast in Dr. Meldrums Lab?)

My work is preserved in pretty pictures for all to examine, and decide for themselves whether or not I am a liar - and as stupid as you want people to think I am. Guess what - they still do not, and why is that? Because I have the pictures to prove I did the work, I did not get your results and my words speak for themselves. I never claimed to be an anatomist, biologist, or a geologist - but I have talked to those who are and have been doing it for a lot longer than you have been pretending to know all their is to know about their jobs. I grant you, your a smart man (Im not as rude as you, I cant lie about that) but you do not have all the answers. If you did - we would see a cast with artifacts that was done in the soil you were sent from Onion Mountain. Neither of us have all the answers - tell me I'm wrong about that.

You can either continue to make this a personal attack, or you can knock it off and discuss the facts as they pertain to the work. To date, you refuse to do that. I did the work to your specifications (that you gave) and I still was not able to create artifacts - there is a reason for that. I don't know what it is, why you take that simple statement as a personal attack is beyond me. If you decide you want to actually discuss the casting experiments, I am all ears - but I am done responding to this latest round of "Shes an idiot, and I am the smartest man on earth" tantrum. Its not worth my time, or effort, it does not speak to the results of any experiments and NOBODY CARES.

When you cant attack the message attack the messenger - that appears to be your lesson in these last few posts. How sad is that.