GuyInIndiana Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 I saw it coming. Mods and Admin protecting people whom they wish... chastising those in dis-favor. How is this any different than "the old" BFF?
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Instead of insulting him, it might benefit you, and the forum to engage him in fruitful and respectful discussion. I'll take that hit...I went over the snark line with that last bit, and I apologize. Is Wolf willing to do the same for accusing me of talking out my *** simply because I don't have a personally-owned copy of LMS or a photgraphic memory?
masterbarber Posted December 30, 2010 Admin Posted December 30, 2010 Why should he? If you've been thumping that book at every skeptic under the sun without owning a copy of it then he's dead on!
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Why should he? If you've been thumping that book at every skeptic under the sun without owning a copy of it then he's dead on! Do YOU have a personally-owned copy of every single book you've ever read?
masterbarber Posted December 30, 2010 Admin Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) Alot of them. I don't beat people over the head with information that I don't have direct and immediate access to. Do you? ETA: You know what, Let me clarify that because I really am going to make an effort to rectify our communication issues because I do enjoy some of what you bring to the table. I find it a tad disingenuous for a person to post information from a book that they hold with such high regard and not be able to reference (for clarity, accuracy, etc...) specific issues when asked about them. Edited December 30, 2010 by masterbarber
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Wow, Wolftrax did not bring up Crowley's work, Mulder did No, Huxterfoot did here:
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Here is a quick answer to your question. I took this photo back in 2007, at (I believe it's called) the Johnson Observatory. I also posted the actual citation given to me from the Gifford Pinchot National Forest - not sure if anyone can recover that post or not. Uploaded with ImageShack.us I don't know about permits to remove ash or pumice. I was told removing ash or pumice from the area was prohibited as the ash and volcanic fall out was helping the forest to recover. This substance or combination is rich in nutrients and it is believed the forest will recover quicker if the ash and pumice is left alone. I am not a geologist, but I have read about the nutrient levels of ash before. I appreciate the picture post, but I think you'll agree that the "skeptics" here aren't going to accept anything other than an official pronouncement on the subject, so I asked them.
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 (edited) Why should he? If you've been thumping that book at every skeptic under the sun without owning a copy of it then he's dead on! It seems quite elitist to insist that one cannot learn and share information from a book that one has read but does not own. Are patrons of libraries second-class citizens? Edited December 30, 2010 by Pteronarcyd
Guest BitterMonk Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 The GNPF ash issue is irrelevant. Matt purchased the ash for his experiments at a pottery supply store. I did the same. There's nothing more to it. The real discussion should be how can we use these findings to further the field and advance the conversation.
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Mulder? (Face palm) Really? You do not even own a copy of LMS? The book you called "the bible" of Bigfoot research? The only Bigfoot book from your idol Dr. Jeff Meldrum. Wow. Let me make sure I didnt already send the book to Bill Green. If not please PM me your address and I will send you a signed copy that I picked up in Ohio in 2008. It is in never read, mint condition.
wolftrax Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Anyways............. I'd really like to see these questions answered.............................. 1) You claimed that you had used volcanic ash and did not get casting artifacts, yet there is only one photo of a closeup showing your dermal ridges, yet none of the remaining areas of the cast. Why was that? Do you have other images showing the rest of the cast, preferably large so people can zoom in? 2) Why did you use your own foot, introducing dermals to confuse both yourself and the reader, instead of using a control fake foot with no dermals? A fake foot would eliminate any confusion between what are real dermals and what are artifacts. 3) In your test results that do show artifacts, what did you use to make the impression? It appears you didn't use your own foot for that. 4) Have you tried using a substrate with the same particulate size as the ash to insure that particulate size is the factor of casting artifacts occurring? I have strong doubts about your claims. Bittermonk mixed his slurry by hand and still got casting artifacts: http://www.theponderingpossum.com/2009/02/casting-experimentation-phase-1.html I've also sifted two different substrates to the same particulate size, one volcanic ash and the other red sand, and the sand did not produce artifacts while the ash did. Matt Crowley has done this as well, comparing the dried mud from the Duwamish river to the clay found higher on the banks of the Duwamish, the dried mud not producing artifacts, while the clay did, clay results shown here: http://orgoneresearch.com/page/17/ Personally I wouldn't be opposed to particulate size and mixing errors being the factor of artifacts occurring. Onion Mtn. having the construction leaving fine dust everywhere would explain it, and a track made in mud that was dried and a layer of dust on it could explain Wrinklefoot. What really matters is that the ridge size and pattern is a match, and the lack of documentation in regards to whether the mud was wet or dry or these kinds of details just wasn't on the minds of people doing the casting at the time. The only problem I do have with it is that tests done by Crowley, Bittermonk, and myself contradict that particulate size and mixing procedures play a role in the appearance of ridged artifacts.
Guest Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Sorry Mulder, I did send it to Bill Green. I will try to scrounge up another copy for you.
Guest fenris Posted December 30, 2010 Posted December 30, 2010 Wolftrax, there are some parts of this post that seem alot like an old argument is being brought here from somewhere else. Especially the bolded part. If there is some bad blood over this issue , please take it somewhere else. It's not allowed here. Let's all work together to keep the new BFF a friendly place to post without any blasts from the past. Thanks, Chris B. There is bad blood here and maybe, just maybe these two ought to take it to personal message or email rather than derail or pollute the thread with fued if all we're looking at is a rehash of the same old?
Recommended Posts