Skookum Cast Specimen-Based Interpretation, Preliminary report Options

[Desertyeti]

Here's a preliminary report (written in classic, dry scientific style...my apologies), with accompanying first-draft figures of my study of the Skookum Cast. I want to stress that I traced out only those features that exist on the cast, and made no interpretation of them until after I was done with the photowork. This is standard practice is straigraphic geology, where we work with photopanels of outcrops, trace surfaces and features, then double-check them on the actual outcrop or specimens. This serves as a safety-check and helps correct errors made from 2-d images. The interpretation shown here is preliminary, and a newer one exists, but I still need to double check a couple of minor features. I know plenty of people will disagree with this study, and that's fine. All I can say is, look at the specimen yourself if you get a chance, and remember Occam's Razor!

Introduction
The “Skookum Cast” as it has become widely known is a Hydrocal plaster specimen of a body imprint collected in September, 2000 by Rick Noll, members of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, and a television documentary crew. Although nothing has been formally published on the specimen, it has been touted as representing some of the best available evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Yet no formal study or detailed interpretation of the cast has been published since its discovery.
The purpose of this study was to examine the slab and couterslab of the Skookum Cast in order to: 1) document the occurrence of footprints, body prints, and hair flow patterns; 2) compare these traces to known animal sign in an effort to identify the makers; and 3) evaluate previous claims that the Skookum Cast represents clear evidence for the existence of a large, hairy, non-human, North American hominid.

Materials and Methods
The cast and counterslab of the “Skookum Cast” were examined in detail, and high-resolution photographs were shot for use in photo-interpretative work. Interpretations were digitally traced directly over the photos, and later compared to the actual specimens to verify the details. First-order surfaces are those that are readily apparent, 3-d shapes in the cast, exhibiting textures and morphologies characteristic of animal traces and were traced in a heavy line. Second-order surfaces include hair patters and surficial textures and were traced in a lighter-weight line. All surfaces were traced and compared to the specimen, and no attempt was made during the tracing to interpret structures, morphologies, or the originator of the trace. Only upon completion of the tracing exercise were the results compared to casts of tracks of known animals, and also published examples of animal tracks and sign (see Elbroch, 2003).

Results
In addition to the large body trace evident in the cast, four elk hoof prints, at least seven canid prints, and two boot prints are visible (Figs. 1, 2). Hair flow patterns are clearly preserved over much of the body trace, and match the pattern of flow in resting traces of large, hoofed mammals, including elk (see Figs. 1, 2). Although dermatoglyphic ridges have been informally reported on the “heel”, here interpreted as the wrist, none were evident to me during examination of the specimen. The elk hoof prints exhibit the characteristic rounded anterior margin and emarginated posterior margin of the species’ hoof morphology and are deeply impressed into the mud, ranging from 2-5 cm in depth.
The canid track was formed after the elk had moved away from the area as demonstrated by the superimposition of the canid’s prints over the main body imprint. The boot prints were left by the researchers at the site.

Discussion
The Skookum Cast appears to be a perfect example of forcing data to fit a pre-formed conclusion. In this case, the researchers were out to find evidence of Bigfoot, and this colored their interpretation of the evidence. Despite the complete lack of any Bigfoot prints on any part of the specimen, or in the immediate vicinity, the Skookum Cast continues to be lauded as some of the best evidence available for the existence of large, non-human North American hominids. Elk hoof prints found in direct association with the body imprint, combined with the very characteristic hair flow patterns readily apparent on the imprint immediately suggest that the specimen represents an elk lay (see Elbroch, 2003 for a discussion of the characteristics of ungulate lays).
The elk body print clearly evident in the Skookum Cast reveals the animal’s flank, butt, thigh, knee, shin, and metatarsals in precisely the areas where they would be expected (see Elbroch, 2003; Fig. 2). The curvature so readily apparent in the anterior impression of the elk’s thigh and knee were interpreted as the imprint of the gluteus maximus of a large hominid by at least some of the researchers who examined the cast (Murphy, 2004). The metatarsal imprints were likewise interpreted as the forearm of a hominid, and the imprints of the wrist and metacarpus became a “heel imprint.” The paired wrist and metacarpus imprints are characteristic of elk, deer, and other ungulate lay traces (see Elbroch, 2003). Significantly, the lack of hoof prints directly within the outline of the main body print is exactly what is seen in deer, elk, and other ungulate lays (see Elbroch, 2003). Hoof prints found outside the main body outline, but related to the forelegs reveal how the animal stood up.
Since none of the previous interpretations of the Skookum Cast have been formally published, it is impossible to evaluate all the claims surrounding the specimen. Nor is it possible to determine from the available information whether any of the researchers involved in its analysis have actually compared the specimen to known elk lays. There is little doubt that anyone actually making a comparison between the Skookum Cast and an elk lay would find the resemblance absolutely compelling. To this end, it is perhaps significant that a young couple examining the cast at a recent exhibition looked at it for roughly three seconds before the young lady summed up her interpretation in a mild Texas accent: “It looks just like a cow.”

Conclusions
The main body of the Skookum Cast represents a near-perfect body outline of an elk. The flanks, butt, thigh, knee, shin, metatarsals, metacarpals, wrist, and possible head imprints are all clearly visible and in exactly the position in which they’d be expected. The position of the hoof prints demonstrates how the animal raised itself up from its resting position. At some later time, a coyote walked through the site, and finally, the site was visited by the researchers and a cast made.

References Cited

Elbroch, M., 2003, Mammal Tracks and Sign, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA, 779 p.

Murphy, C. L., 2004, Meet the Sasquatch, Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, WA, 239 p.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Yetifan]

Wow...nice job Desertyeti.

[StacyInMI]

Agreed... regardless of the reaction to it, that's a damn good report.

[Desertyeti]

Thanks guys!

[Huntster]

You were able to examined the cast itself?

[Desertyeti]

Roger that one.
That's a photo I took of the main slab. The counterslab is next to it on the wall and I also have photos of that and examined it as well. There's nothing like actually looking at the specimen!

[Skeptical Greg]

Great Work !!

[Apeman]

Nicely done DY. Though I was pretty convinced by Meldrum's analysis of the suspected heel, I've been waiting for YEARS for someone to properly make the elk argument. You've almost done it.

Can you provide something from the Elbroch ref to help close the deal?

And can you also provide a ref to refute the common notion that elk always stand up (and place prints) where they lie. I'll have to watch a cow stand up more closely but always wondered about that claim.

Have you engaged any of the proponents with this yet?

Apeman

[RayG]

Have you engaged any of the proponents with this yet?

Apeman

I suspect they'll be showing up shortly. :wink:

RayG

[Desertyeti]

Heya Apeman, Yeah...I've got a couple of scans from Elbroch's book, but I'm going to retrace them to avoid any copyright infringement. They're greyscale sketches, so I won't be losing any detail.

As for the image of animals standing up, I'm working on it with some photos of cows and deer that I've been taking over the past few weeks. They're not elk, so to be super-duper sure, I'll have to get some of those, but I'll post some of the better ones I have of cows et al. None are especially good yet since they've been at a distance, but gimme a couple more days... :wink:

No, I've not engaged anyone with it. This is the first place I've "published" anything since I think everyone should have a chance to examine it before any misunderstandings, mis-statements, misinformation or other mis-es start sneaking out. I wouldn't mind maybe presenting the final, formal interpretation at the BF meeting this October maybe...so I'll have to ask the organizers about that possibility.

[damndirtyape]

Have you engaged any of the proponents with this yet?

Apeman

I suspect they'll be showing up shortly. :wink:

RayG

Nope

[Desertyeti]

:laugh:

[bipto]

I'm going to retrace them to avoid any copyright infringement.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say what you're doing falls into 'fair use'. Maybe not. In any event...

Let me make sure I have this straight. You did examine the cast first-hand, but are not engaged with Rick Noll or anyone else? How were you able to examine the cast? How long did you have with it?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand where you're coming from.

[Desertyeti]

No sweat.
I examined it (or actually, probably a cast of it..and a very nice one!) at the San Antonio BF exhibit. It and the counterslab are mounted on the wall with some dingy lighting, so I used a flash to make the photos come out better. Problem is, it obliterated some of the detaile-enhancing shadows. Alas.

edited coz I cain't spel.

This post has been edited by Desertyeti: Jul 10 2006, 10:59 AM

[bipto]

Gotcha. Forgot they had those on display in Texas.

[tube]

Having recently been through an original cast vs. copy situation with the "Onion Mountain" or CA-19 cast, it should be noted that DesertYeti examined male and female first generation copies of the original cast.

[Desertyeti]

Yeah, and it's possible there are differences, significant or otherwise, between original and replica. In paleontology, casts are used very often in comparisons and descriptions since they're quite reliable if reproduced well. It is always best to see the original however. In this instance though, the original and replica are so large, robust, and similar (at least in the aspects I've been able to compare based on photos of the original in Murphy's book), that I'm working uder the assumption that for a preliminary study, the cast is sufficient. Obviously, it would be great if the original was similarly interpreted and eventually published.

edited to note: as I stressed above, this is a first draft effort, and any and all suggestions, comments, criticism, etc., are most appreciated and welcome. As I finish up work on the final interpretive panel, I'll be re-examining the slab and counterslab, and eventually...if possible, it would be terrific to see the original. This is just the starting point.

This post has been edited by Desertyeti: Jul 10 2006, 11:10 AM

[Hairy Man]

I agree with the scans DY...no need to retrace them as long as you are properly citing who drew them and the source.

I wasn't sure after reading your report what caused the "achilles heel"? And elk knee? Is there a published example of what that would look like?

edited due to creative spelling.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Jul 10 2006, 11:16 AM

[Judaculla]

I'd like to know more about the criteria used to rule out an elk. From what I can tell, it was the lack of elk prints in the center of the cast and something about the hairflow (I could be wrong on both counts).

So, I am guessing ungulates do rise to all fours without gathering their legs under them, at least occassionally?

[Desertyeti]

Yeah, it seems the "Achille's heel" is actually...according to my interpetation...the combination of the anterior adge of the metacarpus folded against the more muscular, flexible, and wider forearm. The actual "heel" is the wrist of the foreleg. The apparent tendon is the anterior margin of the metacarpus, and the evident widening proximal to the heel is a result of the foreleg being folded tightly against the metacarpus.

edited to add: on this photo you can see how the hindlegs are folded alongside the body..exactly what is seen in the Skookum cast...in my opinion... :wink:

This post has been edited by Desertyeti: Jul 10 2006, 11:27 AM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

Attached image(s)

 

[RayG]

Any possibility something like this happened?



Is it possible for this critter to get to its feet without leaving footprints next to its kneeprints?

Nice photo DY. Any explanation for the supposed testicle prints?

RayG

This post has been edited by RayG: Jul 10 2006, 11:29 AM

[Desertyeti]

Elk can have b*lls too...no?
As to the footprints next to knee prints...in the deer lay sign in Elbroch's book (which I'll post tomorrow since I don't have it at work, and my files are on a computer at home, there are no hoof prints within the main portion of the body imprint. It looks like the animal rolls slightly after digging in its forefeet, so that it's rear hooves actually contact the ground to the side of the body imprint. On the Skookum Cast cast that I saw, there were hoof print looking-marks astride the hindleg imprints. I haven't included them on the roug hsketch since I need to re-examine them and make sure of their identification. Also, please note, I need to include and re-examine a coupl eof the coyote prints too...like I said...it's preliminary.

But...yes, Elbroch images tomorrow morning first thing!

This post has been edited by Desertyeti: Jul 10 2006, 11:34 AM

[Desertyeti]

Also wanted to add that Rick Knoll's helping a LOT with pounding this study into shape and I want to thank him publicly (even if he doesn't agree with the final interpretations).

[seadog]

Very interesting analysis done, thanks for sharing it.
Looking at your cast pictures and body shape drawings you did side by side with those done by BFRO I am seeing quite clearly the outline of an ELK not a Bigfoot. And having set up camp not 500 yards from the road the Skookum cast was made at I can tell you the area is frequented by elk and coyotes. Does it prove that Bigfoot making the cast theory is wrong? No, But it does in my opinion gives the Elk theory the heavier evidence.
Having spotted possible Bigfoot tracks in that area, (just impressions in the hard earth) I do ask my self when I come across them, am I seeing the outline of a foot because I want to see something, or am I really seeing toes, a heel, the ball? It’s a hard call to make. I am still waiting to find a good solid print off the beaten track so it would be unlikely to be made my hoaxers.

[Desertyeti]

Here's the Bigfoot interpretation Seadog's referring to compared to mine:

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Bitter Monk]

Also wanted to add that Rick Knoll's helping a LOT with pounding this study into shape and I want to thank him publicly (even if he doesn't agree with the final interpretations).

Quoted for awesomeness. :icon14:

[Desertyeti]

Yeah, Rick's a pretty decent guy...I'm not sure how interactive I'd be if some yahoo started second guessing an interpretation of mine... :new_evil2: so nobody better!!!!! :wink:

[Hairy Man]

Also wanted to add that Rick Knoll's helping a LOT with pounding this study into shape and I want to thank him publicly (even if he doesn't agree with the final interpretations).

psst....that's Noll not Knoll

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Jul 10 2006, 12:26 PM

[Desertyeti]

DOH!! :doh:
Apologies to Rick!

[Hairy Man]

Hey, btw DY, did you notice any other good work at the Museum??? :wink:

[Desertyeti]

Indeed, but I didn't want to embarass you!
Very nice video presentation! The pictograph material is very interesting and you presented it quite well! Unfortunately, I had to pretty much run after looking at the casts since my car was overheating just before I got to the museum. I didn't want to stay longer than I had to since I wanted to get to a mechanic a.s.a.p. Long story short...it's a transaxle and I was left with a rental car to get me home to Houston. Problem is the rental had problems too...hmmmmmm...the mighty Skookum's revenge!?

[Hairy Man]

That does sound like Skookum Revenge...did you wake up shorter or with less hair too?

[Desertyeti]

How'd you know!?!?
Here's me with the car rental guy (he's the taller one).

Attached image(s)