The Official Skookum Cast Analysis Information Thread, Newly released information and analysis. Rating Options

[colobus]

I've been asked to offer this information regarding the Skookum Cast. During the apparent silence regarding the cast considerable information has been gathered through slow, steady and careful analysis. As with most scientific enquiries, this one has taken time, and is not complete by any means. The information being offered here is however vastly more complete than any released publicly to date.

First off, I wish to state that no one can ever prove that a Sasquatch was responsible for the impression captured in the Skookum Cast. It is hoped that this thread may provide some of the information that has lead numerous extreamly well qualified individuals to believe that the impression may be that of an unrecognized species of animal.

So... to begin.

Much has been written, and is available about the particular circumstances that lead up to the discovery of the impression. That can be hashed over later. As for the site where all the events took place, here's a map.

[colobus]

The site where the cast was made was a partially graveled, open turn around just off a Forest Service road. It had a small area, 20'x25' in the middle, characterized as a topographical depression lower than the surrounding area. This low area collected runoff water from the Forest Service road edge.

The runoff from surrounding terrain has carried clays down-slope resulting in a natural salt rich clay pan soil – attracting a wide variety of wildlife such as elk, blacktail deer and coyote.

It had rained heavily the day and night before the discovery of the mud imprint. A muddy water pool was present at 0300 but had dissipated to soft mud by 0900 on September 21, 2000.

Attached is a photo of the impression site with a 10 inch grid superimposed. The fruit that was left can clearly be seen. The impression itself is highlighted in purple. This photo also shows the areas of firm ground, and the wettest ground. Much has been made about entry and exit from the impression itself - and the proximity of relatively firm substrate. Hopefully this image will answer some questions.

One should note that in imagery from the cast site landmark features from the cast will appear in mirror image.

[colobus]

The mud imprint and resulting plaster cast have four (4) large putative heels and two (2) large putative Achilles’ tendons visible. The bottom of the “heels” exhibit orange peel texture that some have associated with dermal ridge friction skin patterns.

The four putative heel impressions do not exhibit morphologic characteristics that would indicate they were made by the forward parts of the fore or hind quarter legs of a deer or elk, despite obvious passing similarity. Tests with elk limbs have found significant differences in morphology between the two. It is of interest that the four putative heel impressions were made by two different limbs – as shown by mirror image hair patterns (one by one limb, three by another),

No hair pattern was present on the bottom of the heel-foot imprints which were impressed at a sharp angle. The heel impressions appear to have been made by the rear part of a foot. Impressions like these can easily be made with lower limbs that have greater movement than a deer or an elk would; they were lifted straight up out of the mud. The putative heels are not consistent with bent knees of deer or elk, nor the paws of a bear.

The physical size and limb proportions of the imprint are too small for elk (except for maybe a small cow or yearling) and too large for deer. Hair patterns however do not match elk. Nor do elk limb proportions match correctly with the impression on the cast. No fresh scat or urine deposits from any animals were present either (as is usually the case with elk lays).

The imprint is too large for either coyote or bear (except maybe a 6.5’ black or a small to medium sized grizzly, which would be a very rare occurrence). The animal that made the mud imprint is estimated to be larger in linear measurements than a six-foot human.

Here's a Black and White photo of the impression.




Here is the impression in the Skookum Cast. The different colors for the putative heel strikes help differentiate impression order.




The hair impressions found on 98% of the mud imprint (excluding the bottom of the heel-foot imprints) have patterns and lengths and flow direction characteristics not consistent with deer, elk, bear or coyote.

It should be noted that the fiberglass copies (male and female) of the Skookum Cast about 50% of the hair is not visible.









Here's the impression, with hairflow. It is interesting to note how the hairflow relates to the forms present in the impression.








By lightening the cast image it is easier to see detail in the hairflow.

[colobus]

Much has been made about the arguement that the cast is nothing more than an elk lay. Here are all the elk tracks, and their direction of travel, in the cast.

[colobus]

The next image shows the transits of the impression made by elk. The two primary transits can be seen entering and leaving the impression site in photos and video. They are in fact transits.

No where in the cast are any elk tracks in the proper positioning or orientation to be consistent with elk lays. Elks gather their legs under them when rising. They would be in, or immediately adjacent to the impression - side by side. Considerable documentation has been gathered to support this contention.






This post has been edited by colobus: Jul 18 2006, 03:06 AM

[colobus]

Here's an example of an elk lay in snow. Limbs are picked out for clarity. Credit to the photographer - used with permission.

There are a number of presentations of elk lays, but the thing they have in common is tracks from when they get up. Urine and drooppings are also very often deposited in the elk lay when the animal rises.

[colobus]

Other animals besides elk walked in the impression. One blacktail deer and a coyote visited the impression site after it was made. Some have misidentified the much smaller (and much more shallowly impressed) blacktail deer tracks as that of elk. They are approximately 60% the size of elk tracks.

Here the blacktail deer tracks (and the transit they depict) can be seen.

It is interesting to note that three seperate animals slipped in the same very wet area of the cast. Clay is slippery when wet.







Coyote too came to the muddy depression. Light and agile - he didn't sink very deeply into the impression.

[colobus]

Let's talk about the hair impressed into the cast. Much of it is longer than that found on elk - even in winter. The longest is on the putative forearm impression. The average length appears to 2 to 3 inches. That is individual hairs have been followed for that distance. The hair appears quite coarse.

Again, much has been made about elk lays and the hairflow pattern on the Skookum Cast. There are many areas on the cast that have hairflow patterns that do not match the hairflow on the elk anatomy suggested as having made that part of the impression.

The next illustation shows a comparison of elk hairflow with the Skookum Cast hairflow. It is quite easily seen that they do not match in these critical areas.






Here is the elk photo with hairflow picked out in orange.

[colobus]

While the hairflow found on the Skookum Cast does not match that of elk or bear, there are primates it is very similar to.

Attached is an illustration of a very common human hairflow pattern. Truth be told I'm traumatized by the research into human hairflow. The hairflow on the buttock of gorilla is very similar to that of human. The closest match for the hairfow in the putative buttock and thigh areas is us - humans. Interesting anyway.

Here it is. Counciling is recommended after you do your own research along these lines.

[colobus]

So how could a sasquatch make an impression like that found on the Skookum Cast? Is it possible?

Explanations offered shortly after the discovery clearly were lacking something. The elk hoof drag near the fruit pile was initially though by people on the scene as a possible finger marks from an animal reaching towards the fruit. Many of you have seen illustrations done by Mr. Travers showing just such a scenario. Soon it was realized that the marks were hoof marks.

Yet the evidence in the impression does not support the idea of a side laying sasquatch reaching for fruit as depicted initially. The movements suggested initially required unlikely body positions not unlike a game of twister. And that scenario still didn't explain how ALL the areas of the cast were impressed.

When it became clear during further analysis that three of the putative heel strikes were made by one limb, and the fourth deeper one made by the other limb (the hairflow patterns are mirror images), a new scenario was needed to explain how the cast could have come into being.

So here's the latest thinking on how the impression was made. It takes into account all the impression areas, offers a plausable explaination for the impression order depicted in the cast, and allows for entry into and out of the site without leaving obvious footprints.

One should take a moment to look at the photo of the impression site and note what areas were very wet, and which areas were fairly dry.








As far as getting into the impression area, it could have just walked in and sat down, or something a bit more involved could have happened.

Once sitting, leaning backward supported by a hand on firm ground - the impression begins to take form. Those parts of the impression being newly impressed show up in these diagrams with a brighter color.







A shifting of weight and a lean into wet muddy clay.





Shifting of the right leg.






Small changes in position.






Repositioning of the right leg in an open splayed position. Repositioning of the forearm.








Repositioning of the left leg, knee sharply raised, planting of the left heel, depression of the ischial tuberosity.






Exit from the impression site.







That's all for now. Hopefully some good information to chew on.

By the way... could a mod please fix the spelling on thread title. It's quite late and I should be asleep. Thanks.

This post has been edited by colobus: Jul 18 2006, 03:04 AM

[bipto]

For easy reference, here is a list of all the threads dedicated to discussion of the Skookum Cast that have been started since November 2003.

Nice work, colobus. Thanks for all the effort!

[adamsclimber]

Very nice to see how things have progressed/been looked at. As I believe that its in everyone that's been involved with the cast to "keep their cards close to their chest", I think its very cool that this "newer" info is posted here for us to see and inspect and form our own judgements upon which thread is presenting.

[LAL]

Great work. Thanks, colobus.

Is anyone writing a paper?

[DanChamberlain]

There is a sound made by a door softly closing that is much different from that of a door clanging shut. I think the elk is out of the pen...and the door just clanged shut!

Dan C

[Desertyeti]

Nice job with the interpretive panels, colobus.
But, the preponderance of data, coupled with your own images, scream "Wapiti!" I find it curious that despite alleging that the hair patterns are clearly not elk-like, and alleging that my interpretive hair patterns are incorrect, you've chose not to illustrate a known elk lay with hair flow highlighted. Is there any particular reason? Speaking for myself, I don't have one handy, but perhpas you do? If not, it's no big deals since I'm sure one can be found and studied shortly by someone who has a mind to.
All interpretations aside, the fact remains that there's absolutely nothing demontrably hominid or even primate-like about the cast. All indications are a large ungulate.

edited to note the snow trace on the left should be rotated 90 degrees to the right so that it's in the same position as the Skookum elk print.

This post has been edited by Desertyeti: Jul 18 2006, 06:52 AM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Apeman]

The next image shows the transits of the impression made by elk. The two primary transits can be seen entering and leaving the impression site in photos and video. They are in fact transits.

No where in the cast are any elk tracks in the proper positioning or orientation to be consistent with elk lays. Elks gather their legs under them when rising. They would be in, or immediately adjacent to the impression - side by side. Considerable documentation has been gathered to support this contention.

First of all, a big thanks to Colobus, DDA and ALL the others involved for giving the rest of us something more to chew on. There is certainly a lot do digest here but it sure is nice to be able to do so (finally?) and more importantly to see the forum being properly used for info exchange, especially for those of us that can't currently (but intend to eventually) get our eyes on the actual cast (again).

While I continue to waste all of my "spare" time in the coming days pouring over all this, I'd could use some help on two quick questions:

1. Is the orang'ish 'V'-shaped area in the lower middle part of the cast in this elk track image being attributed to an elk? and if so, is it what it looks like- and elk wrist? and is it believed to have been made before or after the rest of the impression? and was there any hair pattern evident on it? (edited a second time to add that I answered this one myself- didn't look at the blow-up so I see now that this is a foot drag of some sort- right?

2. I can't believe I'm asking this, but where exactly is the suspected testicle impression or has that portion of the interpretation been tossed out? If the answer is 'between the cheeks' then I already see it and don't need any red circles... or anything more graphic.

3. (edited to add #3) To save me a few $ on counseling or looking at my a$$ in the mirror- do have the documented human hairflow pattern behind and below the knees?

Thanks to all,
Apeman

PS- This case, and this thread, and this discussion, and DY's...provocation? have been really excellent reminders to me of why I spend so much (arguably too much) time in this forum. Thanks everyone for the breath of fresh air, keeping the discussions mostly civil and productive, and not getting waaayyyyy of track like too many other threads. And for being patient with people like me thinking out loud a little too often.

This post has been edited by Apeman: Jul 18 2006, 08:13 AM

[LAL]

How does the hair flow compare to Orangutan?

(I'm thinking of Giganto being thought to be an Orang relative.)

[Desertyeti]

I agree completely with Apeman. the forums are the perfect place to air out ideas, share data and information and hack away at hypotheses and data. Disagreements amongst researchers are commonplace in museums, labs, and universities, but few people get to see how they work. The forums are a wonderful insight into this process.

Apeman refers to my ...provocation?...well...yes and no. Yes, in that I'm prodding colobus's interpretation in the same way he prodded my interpretations. He makes a few statements above about hair flow, similar to the issues he had with m ysketches, but doesn't back it up with an image of a reclining elk. A standing animal has different flow patterns than a reclining one. The knee of the elk responsible for the Skookum Cast was flexed upwards, causing a different flow pattern than the standing elk shown above. No, in that I'm not picking out red herrings or insignificant details just to be difficult. Honest!! :ohmy:

[LAL]

Here it is. Counciling is recommended after you do your own research along these lines.

I need a volunteer.

[Apeman]

Apeman refers to my ...provocation?...well...yes and no.

Sorry, didn't mean anything by that, was actually referring to your whole interpretation in the other thread. Was scrambling for a noun reflecting something provocative, but I wasn't an English major - hence the question mark. But this works, no?:

Main Entry: prov·o·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "prä-v&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of provoking
2 : something that provokes, arouses, or stimulates

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

...back to anatomy texts (which is not a euphemism)...

[Volsquatch]

This is all very interesting, and I enjoy following a healthy debate on both sides of this issue. To be fair, since this particular thread has been pinned, shouldn't Desertyeti's thread be merged here, or pinned as well?

[Hairy Man]

Great job colobus! Very informative.

[Judaculla]

OK, question... in the light orange outline of a putative forearm, is that a hand and thumb being depicted?

Also, I recall (perhaps incorrectly) from the Willow Creek Symposium DVDs that there may have been some potential toe impressions preserved in the cast...a footprint that was mostly obliterated by the impression. Is that right?

Has Matt Crowley's work had any impact on the interpretation of dermal ridges on the cast?

Will a paper be submitted to a peer-reviewed professional journal in the near future?

OK, that was four questions...

Thank you to Colobus for laying this out in one spot.

[Melissa]

Very nice Colobus Thank you !!!

[bipto]

To be fair, since this particular thread has been pinned, shouldn't Desertyeti's thread be merged here, or pinned as well?

Our thinking about this, right or wrong, is...

The Skookum Cast is a significant event in the recent history of bigfoot research and investigation. Colobus' thread (this one) is the "official" interpretation of the evidence collected and, because of that, worthy of pinned status. I see it as similar to Roger Patterson posting his official take on the film (can you imagine?). That would also be a fairly big deal and put that post somewhere above the fray. There have been several suggestions that the cast get it's own subforum. I have been resistant to that because I'm somehow genetically opposed to balkanizing the conversation here to such an extent that we're constantly telling people they posted in the wrong forum or moving threads, etc. If this gets its own subforum, then what else should? The St Croix video?*

After being told in advance that Colobus was preparing this post, I and the other admins discussed it and felt this was the best way to present it. It also seemed logical to create a thread that lists all the other Skookum topics, including DesertYeti's (of which, there are only 12 in four years- including this one - which is the main reason we didn't spawn a new subforum). That being said, we might still open a new subforum for the cast if it starts to generate a higher volume of threads.

No one should assume that because we pinned this we're somehow dissing other threads and opinions. That's not the intention. The intention, since this is the "official" position of those who discovered and have spent the most time analyzing the cast, is to give it some kind of elevate status so it's easy to find. Everyone of all positions are still free to post what they think here or in any other thread.


* I also acknowledge that we should occasionally review the subforums that already exist and remove those that no longer serve a purpose.

[maxx]

I feel the orange highlights are misleading. When I look at the the unaltered picture and then compare to the highlighted, I see orange area..that shouldn't be orange. I don't have photoshop with me at the moment in order to illustrate where exactly I'm talking about. One place the bugs me is the "v" shaped spot below the large section (someone else mentioned it). It has the appearance of a hand and thumb. When looking at the original, I just don't see where that shape is remotely similar to whats highlighted. I understand I am looking at a photograph, and I may be missing a lot of details.

Another point is the differences in hair flow. My untrained eyes see no difference. If anything your comparison convinces me more so that it is an elk lay, as the pattern appears to be exactly the same. Maybe some slight differences, that can be attributed to being under pressure and in the mud.

I am in no way an expert, so this is just a Joe on the street observance. Thanks so much for sharing this information. It is nice to be able to understand clearly how it is percieved to be a sasquatch. Fascinating stuff.


edited for typos...lots of typos

This post has been edited by maxx: Jul 18 2006, 01:22 PM

[Volsquatch]

To be fair, since this particular thread has been pinned, shouldn't Desertyeti's thread be merged here, or pinned as well?

Our thinking about this, right or wrong, is...

The Skookum Cast is a significant event in the recent history of bigfoot research and investigation. Colobus' thread (this one) is the "official" interpretation of the evidence collected and, because of that, worthy of pinned status. I see it as similar to Roger Patterson posting his official take on the film (can you imagine?). That would also be a fairly big deal and put that post somewhere above the fray. There have been several suggestions that the cast get it's own subforum. I have been resistant to that because I'm somehow genetically opposed to balkanizing the conversation here to such an extent that we're constantly telling people they posted in the wrong forum or moving threads, etc. If this gets its own subforum, then what else should? The St Croix video?*

After being told in advance that Colobus was preparing this post, I and the other admins discussed it and felt this was the best way to present it. It also seemed logical to create a thread that lists all the other Skookum topics, including DesertYeti's (of which, there are only 12 in four years- including this one - which is the main reason we didn't spawn a new subforum). That being said, we might still open a new subforum for the cast if it starts to generate a higher volume of threads.

No one should assume that because we pinned this we're somehow dissing other threads and opinions. That's not the intention. The intention, since this is the "official" position of those who discovered and have spent the most time analyzing the cast, is to give it some kind of elevate status so it's easy to find. Everyone of all positions are still free to post what they think here or in any other thread.


* I also acknowledge that we should occasionally review the subforums that already exist and remove those that no longer serve a purpose.

Well, that does make sense! :smile:

This is definitely one of the more fascinating topics I've ever came across in the world of bigfoot. Right up there with the P&G film. It gets my vote for having it's own subforum. :icon14:

[HarryHenderson]

Firstly, I must admit my ignorance was bliss in that I never knew how many Bigfooters™ thought so highly of this Skookum Cast™ 'thang'. My attention to it has been cursory at best as it just never seemed as interesting as it appararently is to some. Regardless...

I'm still a little vague on what exactly 'alerted' the proponents of the Skookum Cast™ to think it was of possible Bigfoot™ origin? Did anyone have a sighting/incident in that specific area in the time frame from no imprint to imprint (or even sometime before or after)?

From the pictures it appears the entire surrounding area was muddy/damp earth to one degree or another, yet not even a single Bigfoot™ footprint leading into or out of the area was found/cast/photographed? It appears there's deer and elk prints scattered all over though. Also, it seems the purported 'heel imprints' really just resemble such and upon a simple 'closer examination' of only the the pictures even that is suspect in that there's no apparent definitive transition/delineation as to where exactly the 'sole' of the heretofore typically wide heeled FLATFOOT would begin or be. IOW, if it's a heel, where's the foot?

As to the 'dermal ridges' and 'hair flow lines', there's way too much credit being given to the idea that the initial substrate (damp/muddy soil) and subsequent casting did not or would not 'change before/during and after that process. Were there soil samples taken and tested to determine the exact geological make-up of said soil? Certain types of soil (clay and clay mixtures specifically) actually move and breathe based solely on their moisture content. It does appear the soil took the the imprints and held them in memory easily, but if there was any sort of 'drying out' effect (thus shrinkage) coupled with the subsequent casting procedures with a wet medium, it's difficult if not impossible to believe the surface detail (i.e. hair flow patterns, dermal ridges et al) wouldn't have been affected/created/disheveled in one way or another - meaning it would change so as to not properly reflect the actual/real texture of the form that initially made them.

I am confused as to what exactly was/is the 'thinking' of the seeming suitable experts that have studied this case. I have to wonder if this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Meaning why exactly has the elk explanation been seemingly discounted? I don't think 'science proper' has ever been given the mandate to disprove everything as we think it to be. Sometimes, oftentimes, things really are as they appear. At this juncture I don't think I would care if Albert Einstein himself had risen from the grave and studied the imprint. Based on what I can see and what I've read, to make the claim that it is more likely a Bigfoot™ imprint than say an indigenous known mammal is truly ridiculous, if not 'wishful thinking sloppy science'. For better or worse, the proponents of the Skookum Cast™ have a larger burden to bear than Desertyeti. To some I think his may seem like too simple an explanation, but it certainly fits with the crime scene and he seemingly does have the degree of expertise (and quite possibly more than many of the of experts that have examined it so far) necessary to make a viable and reasonable determination. He's certainly not offered up anything that is a 'stretch', which cannot be said of the proponent opinion. IMHO of course. :wink:

"Harry"

[Tsiatko]

Were there soil samples taken and tested to determine the exact geological make-up of said soil?

I think Colubus covered the soil makeup in his first post. I don't think he mentioned samples being taken but if I remember correctly they were.

[Jim Zenor]

I was very interested in DY's thread and am very impressed with Colobus's interpretation. I would very much like to see where the apple was relative to the cast.

[Apeman]

I would very much like to see where the apple was relative to the cast.

Jim- You can see this is the second post and second image from Colobus in this thread.

[walkingcarpet]

Yeah, how about them apples?

*ahem*

What became of the apples? Surely it occured to someone to bring them in for DNA or other testing. I'm assuming that there is some sample somewhere of elk slobber and that traces from the apples were compared to same. And that it was carefully considered why elk or bigfoot would take the time to wallow in a mud pit for the presumed purpose of consuming said apples only to leave the overwhelming bulk thereof unconsumed. At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?

[LAL]

Yeah, how about them apples?

*ahem*

What became of the apples? Surely it occured to someone to bring them in for DNA or other testing. I'm assuming that there is some sample somewhere of elk slobber and that traces from the apples were compared to same. And that it was carefully considered why elk or bigfoot would take the time to wallow in a mud pit for the presumed purpose of consuming said apples only to leave the overwhelming bulk thereof unconsumed. At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?

A peel was tested at a BC lab but "refused to give up products for amplification" (see LMS).

Field notes of the expedition here:

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003...alExpedMain.htm