Footprint casting - Latex?

[SWWASAS]

The best way I know to see if a footprint might be legit is to stand on one boot and put all your weight on that foot right next to a potential BF footprint.  If your boot is close to the size of the footprint find and you can only make a boot print a fraction of the depth of the find depth,   it is pretty evident that whatever made the bare footprint weighed several times what you do.  I don't need a latex foot to discover that.     That does not prove anything but certainly indicates something very heavy made the original print.  A rubber foot does not tell me much of anything other than make me question the reason for their construction.     Look at the legacy his wood stompers left for Wallace.   

[gigantor]

The reason you know a rubber foot doesn't tell you anything is because somebody made one and tried it out.

 

Otherwise, you wouldn't know it can't reproduce the real thing.

[SWWASAS]

Your statement suggests I am a victim of hoaxing.   Your  logic or implication is that if someone can prove that some footprints were or can be hoaxed that all must be hoaxed?   That is classic faulty skeptic logic.          Or if someone can duplicate a Patty costume, then Patty must have been a costume?     I have no doubt and Meldrum will even admit,    that some of the footprint casts he has in his collection of hundreds at this point are likely hoaxed.     Patty or footprints could have been hoaxed but that has no bearing on the existence of bigfoot.    All that takes is for one BF to be alive or have been alive someplace and made footprints and become known to science.  .     

Edited February 9, 2018 by SWWASAS

[gigantor]

21 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Your statement suggests I am a victim of hoaxing.   Your  logic or implication is that if someone can prove that some footprints were or can be hoaxed that all must be hoaxed? 

 

Not at all. I don't know how you draw those conclusions from what I said.

 

I think you're being defensive for some reason. The world includes others besides you. I was simply offering good reasons why a researcher would be justified in making/having stompers.

 

[SWWASAS]

Now you are getting snarky.     Read your own statement here a couple of times.    It can be interpreted a couple of different ways.   Apparently I interpreted it different than your intent?.       Gigantor:     "The reason you know a rubber foot doesn't tell you anything is because somebody made one and tried it out."    I interpreted that to mean that someone tried one out on me.     As a matter of fact that is my only logical interpretation of that statement since I have no personal first hand knowledge of the results of testing a latex foot by anyone.  If I had, then an alternative interpretation of your statement would be possible.      I know Meldrum messed with them when he was investigating the  mid tarsal  break phenomena but don't remember what it told him.             As I have said I assume a footprint find to be hoaxed when I find it.      I then run it through a sort of logic matrix to gain some probability of it being authentic.  That probability has never approached 100%      I would have to see the track being laid down for that,  and be certain that the producer of the print is not some guy in a costume.    That has not happened.   

Edited February 10, 2018 by SWWASAS

[gigantor]

Listen to yourself. I, I, I, I... 

 

We were all talking in general, about why would a researcher have stompers. I offered a few good reasons. Period.

[Night Walker]

On 2/9/2018 at 4:53 AM, SWWASAS said:

As you say why would a researcher have one?   Do you have knowledge of this or are you assuming because a  researcher had found footprints that someone has a stomper to make them?     .   

 

 

The first image is from a research group's website. Their website was created in 2001 but the group were actively researching 4-5 years prior (under a slightly different acronym). Accompanying text: "Latex Mould of XXXX* Yowie. Latex cast of the print we found of the Yowie that attacked the campervan at 3am"  (* identifying location removed).

 

The second and third images are from same group's YouTube page. Transcribed: "Now this one here – this is exhibit A. We’ve done a latex mould of this foot which we got from the XXXX* area not too long ago. Now as you can see here – this is a very human-looking foot. We’ve got a very large instep – far wider than a normal human’s, not much longer than a human’s but the circumstances surrounding this creature here actually attacked the campervan at 2 o’clock in the morning while there were people sleeping in it."

 

The campervan incident was reported in the local newspaper in mid March, 2000, but the exact date of the incident is unknown (presumed to be late 1999 to early 2000). The article speaks only with the researcher and not with the people involved in the "campervan attack". I have found further photos from that "expedition" which shows the casting of footprints but they are using plaster not latex:

 

 

During this "expedition" a larger "Bigfoot" style of print was also cast in plaster and which bears close resemblance to print cast some 3hrs drive away by members of the same group in 1998. Known as the Springbrook 1998 cast it is very similar in shape to prints from Bluff Creek (c. 1967):

 

(Healy & Cropper, 2006)

 

As I said earlier, this particular research group goes back to the mid 1990s (exact date unknown). I have evidence that they were visited in Australia by members of an American research group some time before the latex prints emerged but, again, the exact date is unknown. It is also unknown if the same or other groups or individuals traveled to Australia during the mid-late 1990s or whether anyone from the Australian group traveled to the USA in that time. Are there trusted members here who were around in the 1990s that may help shed further light on this? Would PM be a better form of communication rather than a relatively open forum such as this?

 

 

[Night Walker]

On 2/11/2018 at 9:39 AM, Night Walker said:

Are there trusted members here who were around in the 1990s that may help shed further light on this?

 

So, there is nobody here to talk to about this? Thank you for your time...

[msouliere]

On 2/2/2018 at 5:41 PM, Night Walker said:

[snip] Discounting giving a prosthetic foot to a footless Yowie, are you sure there is no other use for a latex foot mold other than hoaxing?

 

Latex is not an archival recording format.  By its very nature it is unstable.  It does not hold its shape, is easily malleable, and changes shape and volume over time as the material degrades and reacts to its storage environment.

 

So if you are trying to determine whether someone would legitimately use it in the field to cast footprints, it would only make sense if:

 

1) the person was a naive amateur, or

2) simply experimenting to find out for themselves what it would do, or

3) the only material they had with them at the time was liquid latex.

 

I guess you can't really discount 1) out of hand -- an interview with the person might help with clarifying their level of field savvy/intelligence, if you felt this was a valid concern.

Option 2) is unlikely -- why would someone waste a clear footprint for experimental purposes?!!

Clearly 3) is absurd, except for use as a ludicrous movie plot element.

 

-Michelle

[wiiawiwb]

On 2/1/2018 at 1:28 PM, SWWASAS said:

Night Walker:    Casting is more art than science.    The real problem is getting the casting material in the footprint without disturbing or destroying fine details.   If the casting material is too viscous, then it can damage the impression.   One has to look a law enforcement who has the most experience and practice to cast.    Plaster of paris was used for years and does a good job with fine details but it is weak and somethings comes apart when it is taken out of hard ground.    I like Hydrocal which is a similar material of different composition that results in a stronger cast.   

 

   Probably the best caster I have been around is Cliff Barrackman.      I attended a seminar at a Bigfoot Conference where he showed his casting techniques.     Meldrum attended the seminar and his input was that you need to completely photograph the footprint before you try to cast.     Sometime casting will destroy it.   Have a ruler visible in the picture.   The boot thing is not professional.   I use a cloth taylors tape.     Circle it, taking pictures from all the way around.    That helps him know what the environment around the cast was and lets him evaluate what the BF might have been doing when it left the print.        I will highlight some of the stuff Cliff showed but probably have forgotten some stuff.   If the footprint is in dry dust casting material will really mess it up.     Several light coats of hairspray will stabilize the dust.  Just mist it on,     It dries very fast and sort of glues the surface dust together.  If you have the spray use it on any print.   It will help and cannot hurt.  Then he would shake dry casting material into the footprint.  A shaker with holes in the top that had grated cheese with a bunch of holes in the lid is really good for that.    Then you mix the casting material.   You want it the consistency of light pancake batter.   Not real thick but not super runny.   Then he took his  rubber gloved hand and sort of dribbled the casting material from his hand into the inner surface of the print.     If you just pour it,  it will distort or destroy a lot of fine details.   Once the inner surface is covered with the casting material,  gently pour it into the footprint filling it to overflowing.      The next part is what most people screw up.    The casting material, especially plaster of paris will harden in just a few minutes.  But it will not be hard enough to remove for several hours.    The longer you wait the greater the chance that you get it out intact.   Once out take it home and let it harden overnight or up to 24 hours before you attempt to clean it up and remove loose stuff like pebbles and pine needles.   Those can be gently brushed or washed off.    You really have to be careful with this process.     Here is a link that details a lot of this.    http://www.tracksceneinvestigation.com/TSI PDFs/CASTING.pdf

 

Now to your question about liquid latex.   What I have seen it is more viscous than Hydrocal.     That makes getting it into the footprint more difficult.   I think the setup / cure time is considerably longer than Hydrocal or plaster of paris.    One of the problems of casting material is just carrying the weight around.    Since most of us carry water it makes sense to me to carry water that can be drunk all the time and if you find a print use it to mix your casting material.    The latex is heavy and you cannot drink it.  I carry the Hydrocal in a gallon zip lock in an amount appropriate for most castings and just add water to the bag to mix the product.   Have rubber gloves with you because plaster of paris and Hydrocal are strong base materials and you don't want that on bare hands.     Anyway I wish Cliff would put out a casting video since like I said he is pretty good.   A good use of latex materials is making copies of your plaster cast.    Make a mold of the cast with latex then you can make all the copies of you cast that you want to. Meldrum sells them at conferences.  

 

Great post SWWASAS. The link you provided was helpful too. I've always read it's good to spray hairspray on the footprint first which you mentioned in your post. I noticed the link you provided talked about using a "can of spray polyurethane". Have you tried that before and, if so, how did it compare to hairspray?