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

[Blight]

Question: Is it possible that a known animal such as an elk, sliding around in the mud, could perhaps create a false hairflow pattern as its hair is dragged through the mud?

[Volsquatch]

Question: Is it possible that a known animal such as an elk, sliding around in the mud, could perhaps create a false hairflow pattern as its hair is dragged through the mud?

I'm sure the professionals have already thought of that possibility, including anything else you might think of.

Besides, if you've not studied the original cast for a total of at least 48 hours with a magnifying glass, while wearing white socks with red rings around the top, then your not qualified to raise any issues or make any assertions.

[RayG]

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

In the attached image, the yellow dots show the distance between what's supposed to be the right butt-cheek and the nearest/pile of apples. The pile of apples is at least 50" away, the single apple is closer at about 40" away.



The red dots show the distance between the forearm and the nearest/pile of apples. In this case the measurements are approximately 40" and 30" respectively.

Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?

RayG

[Jim Zenor]

Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?

Thanks for the info Ray. I am kind of confused as to what is supportive evidence. For example, wasn’t there a call used along with a reply or has that been somewhat discredited with the coyote call. Also there were some "infrared" prints that I thought I remember near the imprint. I do agree with you that it would be useful to try to replicate experiment if possible.

[walkingcarpet]

In the attached image, the yellow dots show the distance between what's supposed to be the right butt-cheek and the nearest/pile of apples. The pile of apples is at least 50" away, the single apple is closer at about 40" away.

I didn't even have to break out the caculator to know that that's, like...far.

The old addin' machine does however tell me this: That's about 42% of an eight foot tall bigfoot's height. Y'know, the bigfoot with the porportionately smaller lower body.

I'm not so good with math, but it seems to all add up to, as I said before, a nice face plant in the mud.

If someone has a cast of that, then we're in business.

[Desertyeti]

Question: Is it possible that a known animal such as an elk, sliding around in the mud, could perhaps create a false hairflow pattern as its hair is dragged through the mud?

A very good question Blight!
Now that I've got my white socks with red rings firmly emplaced with man-garters, let me offer this:
Hair and fur will naturally cling to moist, small-grained matrices like clay, loamy soils, and mud. On a broad surface, like say the flank or butt on an elk, the surface mostly rolls from side to side as the animal lays down, shifts around a bit, then stands up. So the hair flow patters on those areas will probably not change too much since the hairs are only subjected to low-angle, "pressing" into the substrate.

On a narrow or deeper surface, things are more complicated. These structures would emplace deeper into the mud, and the hairs would first tend to flow opposited the direction of thrust. So, if a heel or wrist was shoved down into the mud, the hairs along the sides (but not anterior face of the surface) would tend to flow upwards (tips to the top) and away from the direction of force. As the structure was removed however, the primary (initial) flow direction would be obliterated as the secondary force causes the hairs to flow again, opposite. So, the upwards removal of the structure would cause the lateral hairs to be pulled out with a downward flow direction (tips to the bottom).

Your question is important since it's often forgotten that tracks and imprints record the very last movement of the animal's anatomy as it interacts with the ground superimposed upon all the previous movements. But the last movement can partially or completely wipe out the others too.

This post has been edited by Desertyeti: Jul 20 2006, 07:17 AM

[Saskeptic]

Thanks Colobus - great work! This is the first time I've gotten any sense of what proponents thought might be represented in the Skookum Cast.

This part is somewhat embarrassing, but I'm afraid I do need red circles to find the testicles, as Apeman alluded to earlier. I don't want to belabor this point or send the thread veering off into la-la land, but I have a hard time believing that the substrate was soft enough to take testicular impressions without the rest of the body sinking in much deeper.

Otherwise, I have difficulties with the following aspects:

*There are informed opinions on both sides claiming the impression either was, or was not, made by an elk. There are elk prints on the cast, and I assume elk are common in the area. If the choice is between "elk" and "an undescribed bipedal primate", then parsimony favors the former.

*It just doesn't add up. Why would a sasquatch lay in the mud near the apples rather than just walking over to them? To accept the cast as a genuine sasquatch impression requires a creative imagination to see in the cast an impression of the animal AND to envision the behavior that the animal must have exhibited in the course of making the cast. In contrast, we know that elk frequently bed down either to sleep or ruminate.

*Replication. I'm guessing that wildlife are attracted to this area for its mineral deposits. If that's the case, I would expect that sasquatch would be frequent visitors too. How many prints have come from this spot? How many times has the area been baited and searched for squatch sign? How many times HAD it been tried before obtaining this impression? What about other alleged hotspots of activity? Track plates, hair catchers, game cams - if a squatch at Skookum Meadows could be lured in to a pile of apples, then why wouldn't baited stations elsewhere be the way to go to obtain better evidence for these creatures?

THat's it, I guess. Like a lot of purported evidence, I can't debunk it, but aspects of the evidence and its collection make me too cautious to accept it. I'll wait for the peer-reviewed version before making up my mind.

BTW, any thoughts DY, Colobus, DDA (and anyone else preparing manuscripts on the Skookum Cast) on submitting opposing viewpoint papers to the same journal at the same time? Sometimes stuff like that gets editorial boards really interested . . .

Saskeptic

This post has been edited by Saskeptic: Jul 20 2006, 07:32 AM

[Desertyeti]

I'm sure the editors of Ichnos would be most interested in reading the BF-origin story for the Skookum Cast as well as the elk-as-maker version (soon to be submitted formally). Clearly, colobus et al., have a very thorough study with plenty of figures and supporting data (and references I would pre-suppose), so it shouldn't be too hard to pound out a finished manuscript for review. The eidtorial and submission policies for Ichnos can be found here:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/gichauth.asp

And here's the first bit for those not inclined to point their browser that way:

ICHNOS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL TRACES

Aims and Scope

The foremost aim of Ichnos is to promote excellence in ichnologic research. Primary emphases center upon (1) the ethologic and ecologic significance of tracemaking organisms, (2) organism-substrate interrelationships, and (3) the role of biogenic structures and biogenic processes in environmental reconstruction, sediment dynamics, sequence or event stratigraphy, biogeochemistry, and sedimentary diagenesis. Each contribution rests upon a firm taxonomic foundation, although papers dealing solely with systematics and nomenclature may have less priority than those dealing with conceptual and interpretive aspects of ichnology. Contributions from biologist and geologists are equally welcome. The format of Ichnos is designed to accommodate several types of manuscripts, including Research Articles (comprehensive articles dealing with original, fundamental research in ichnology) and Short Communications (short, succinct papers treating certain aspects of the history of ichnology, book reviews, news and notes, or invited comments dealing with current or contentious issues. The large page size and two-column format lend flexibility to the design of tables and illustrations. Thorough but timely reviews and rapid publication of manuscripts are integral parts of the process.

This post has been edited by Desertyeti: Jul 20 2006, 07:37 AM

[Hairy Man]

Thanks for the info Ray. I am kind of confused as to what is supportive evidence. For example, wasn’t there a call used along with a reply or has that been somewhat discredited with the coyote call. Also there were some "infrared" prints that I thought I remember near the imprint. I do agree with you that it would be useful to try to replicate experiment if possible.

They were using the Tahoe Scream and got a return call. The Tahoe Scream has never been discredited...it was analyzed by Cornell University and it an't no coyote!

[RayG]

Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?

Thanks for the info Ray. I am kind of confused as to what is supportive evidence. For example, wasn’t there a call used along with a reply or has that been somewhat discredited with the coyote call. Also there were some "infrared" prints that I thought I remember near the imprint. I do agree with you that it would be useful to try to replicate experiment if possible.

By 'supportive evidence', I mean evidence in the immediate area that would support the hypothesis of an 8', heavy, unknown bipedal animal, leaving its butt-print in the mud. Supportive evidence would include things like:

• foot or hand prints at the cast site (several so-called heel strikes from this enormous creature, but no foot or hand prints)
• a sighting of this very large biped leaving its butt-print
• DNA obtained/identified from the partially eaten apple

With regards to the call reply, the conclusion drawn was hardly done in a scientific manner. From the BFRO website:

Several possibilities were considered for what kind of animal could have made the kind of vocalizations that had been heard. After weighing all of the options, the general concensus was that it could only have been a sasquatch.

So, not based on a sighting of squatch making sounds, but solely on sounds that have never been confirmed to originate from a squatch, they concluded it could only have come from a squatch. :doh:

On another Skookum related point... in the image below we clearly see the outline of the elbow, forearm, and wrist. What is the length of this area, and how does that relate to the image I posted earlier showing the distances from the apples to the cast? Is the length of the lower arm sufficient to enable the squatch to grab an apple without reaching? And, if the squatch leaned over, using the elbow and forearm to support bodyweight, in order to reach the apples, why isn't the elbow/forearm impression significantly deeper in the mud? The closer to the apples, the softer the ground, correct?



:popcorn2:

RayG

[bipto]

Am I mistaken is saying that image of Meldrum in front of the cast does not constitute the latest interpretation of it? If that's the case, the shouldn't the BFRO pull it down or replace it with a new image?

[Desertyeti]

On another Skookum related point... in the image below we clearly see the outline of the elbow, forearm, and wrist. What is the length of this area, and how does that relate to the image I posted earlier showing the distances from the apples to the cast?

The physical structure is 22.5"...depending on where one wishes to extend the yellow blob to.

[Apeman]

This part is somewhat embarrassing, but I'm afraid I do need red circles to find the testicles, as Apeman alluded to earlier.

I assume they're thinking here, but would be happy to be corrected:

[Desertyeti]

That's a poorly preserved coyote print... :new_weirdsmiley: *ducking behind my desk*...





awwwwww nuts! :new_guitar:

[HarryHenderson]

.....Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?
RayG

I think that is the question of the day. What, if any, is the supporting evidence that there was any kind of recent Bigfoot™ activity in the area? Meaning, did they walked upon the mud impression and out of the blue declare "It must be Bigfoot!" or were there other things of 'substantiative value' that lead them to believe it could be Bigfoot™? Just the call? There were no actual definitive footprints right? If there is in fact 'other information' not being brought forth, shame shame shame on all the proponents. Their credibility would deservedly suffer a major blow if that is true. IMHO.

"Harry"

[colobus]

Desertyeti

“That's a poorly preserved coyote print...”


It seems that when you have an inadequate intelligent reply you either make a joke or offer up some explaination that further demonstrates your infatuation with self. How about some thoughtful discussion?

Whatever that part of the impression is, it is most certainly not from a coyote.

The "area's" extent and layout (so to speak) can be seen in the attached image. The "area" in question is not impressed as deeply as the surrounding impression. It is raised on the cast 3 to 5 mm about the surrounding area. The texture is quite different, the linear features smooth and rounded, considerably more robust than the diameter of the hair in the cast. I will try and get a good oblique image with the right lighting and a scale for Tube to sink his teeth into (figuratively of course).

Coyote prints marked.




The next image is of the same area, without the hair dilineation. I left the coyote tracks very slightly yellow, but you can see their structure clearly. The "area" in question is more easily seem. But a better image, or images will be arranged.

Anyway - not coyote.


As with all these images - click to enlarge.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[colobus]

Here is another picture of an actual elk lay. This one in clay loam.

What I wish to point out with this image is that all elk lays show the hoof tracks from where the animal stood up. They do not roll to their feet, they do not jump up anymore than a cow does.

Elk lays have parallel sets of hoof prints where the elk gets up. The hoofs point the same direction. They are roughly parallel.





Here is the impression and the hoof prints marked.




This post has been edited by colobus: Jul 20 2006, 04:11 PM

[colobus]

I'll try my best to address some of the comments made.


Judaculla

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

When looking at the actual 3-D cast there does appear to be an indication of digits – though it is not possible (obviously) to more definative. The reason it is pointed out is their relationships to the other landmarks on the cast (ie. putative wrist, etc…).


“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?”

The area of the cast in question is one that DDA suggested could have remnants of a track in it. I don’t happen to agree with that interpretation. I don’t think there’s anything in that spot indicating a foot print.


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

I think it has had the effect of making people cautious when Officer Chilcutt offers such interpretations as definitive. That said however, what is still clear is that those areas were NOT covered with hair, and they do have textures that may be dermals.


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

Hopefully. A monograph was originally planned. The people involved got sidetracked with other projects and responsibilities, so it moved along slowly. The chances of a formal paper about evidence suggesting that an impression was made by a sasquatch has about a snowballs chance in hell of being accepted – no matter who’s name is on the title.


Harry Henderson

“Meaning why exactly has the elk explanation been seemingly discounted?”

The elk scenario has been looked at in great depth. While the impression has obvious similarities to an elk lay – there are major important differences that make elk unlikely. I don't say that lightly. I've been a wildlife/natural resource professional for 24 years, and have spent a lot of time around ungulates, and the impressions they leave behind in clay pan soils. When I first asked to examine the Skookum Cast ( I had seen photos previously) I believed it was highly likely it was from an ungulate. When I had opportunity to examine the cast at length - it was quite evident to me that while in some respects is similar to an elk lay, many glaring points cast doubt on that first glancing assesment.

1. There are no elk tracks on the cast in the correct orientation for an elk to have stood up. Elk always leave parallel sets of hoof prints when the get up.

2. Elk cannot roll to their feet as DY has suggested. They have to get their feet under them, much like a cow.

3. The areas where the putative heels are impressed are hair free. Elk limbs are hair covered.

4. The hair pattern on the cast does not match that of an elk in many key areas. These are not minor discrepancies; the hair direction is off by 80 degrees in places.

5. In places on the cast individual hairs can be traced over 3 inches. The area where this occurs is the area where it is suggested an elk’s lower legs would be positioned in the elk scenario. Elk have very short hair on their lower limbs.

There are other reasons, but those are the major ones. Many other wildlife professionals, even elk keepers from the Vancouver Zoo at first glance said - elk lay, yet when they study it a bit more they go... wait a minute ... no hoof prints from getting up, oh, and that's wong too... and so on. These are people that work with elk. Not people who specialize in fossils of creatures from ancient seabeds.




Tsiatko

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

Soil samples were taken. It is a fine silt with very little sand, and a fairly high clay content. Samples are yet to be tested for exact salt and selenium content, though the simple taste test is salty.


Walkingcarpet

“At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?”

Two molds were made off of fruit fragments. These mold were made with an injectable quick drying dental procedure. Casts were then made in a gypsum product. Dr. Meldrum recently mailed the casts to DDA. The two casts are to be analyzed by anatomists who specialize dentition of hooves mammals.



Saskeptic

“I don't want to belabor this point or send the thread veering off into la-la land, but I have a hard time believing that the substrate was soft enough to take testicular impressions without the rest of the body sinking in much deeper.”

The area that looks similar to a testicular impression is not as deeply impressed as the surrounding area. It is higher than the surrounding area by 3 to 5 mm.

“If the choice is between "elk" and "an undescribed bipedal primate", then parsimony favors the former.”

Obviously. If parsimonious arguments regarding the existence any undescribed species are brought to bear then the undescribed species looses out every time. Why then have the discussion?

* * * *


I'm doing my best to answer questions in a non-dogmatic and non-sarcastic manner. I've demonstrated what actual elk lays look like. I've explained reasoning. We've even shown video of an elk getting up. I guess I'd like to see the other side of the discussion respond to the points that have been made in a similarly polite manner.

[bipto]

The "area's" extent and layout (so to speak) can be seen in the attached image.

Holy smokes, man, this is a family forum! :new_weirdsmiley:

OK, seriously, it doesn't look like the other coyote tracks to this untrained eye...

[colobus]

I think Tube asked about wanting to see more detail on the putative dermals on some of the "heels." So here are a couple pictures that may help a bit in showing those features.

[tube]

Thanks for the very clear photographs. With reference to this photograph of what could be two heel strikes side by side, do you have any photos that include a scale for size reference? How wide are the ridges we see? My guess is that they are on the order of about 1mm wide.

Attached image(s)

 

[Desertyeti]

1. There are no elk tracks on the cast in the correct orientation for an elk to have stood up. Elk always leave parallel sets of hoof prints when the get up.

2. Elk cannot roll to their feet as DY has suggested. They have to get their feet under them, much like a cow.

3. The areas where the putative heels are impressed are hair free. Elk limbs are hair covered.

4. The hair pattern on the cast does not match that of an elk in many key areas. These are not minor discrepancies; the hair direction is off by 80 degrees in places.

5. In places on the cast individual hairs can be traced over 3 inches. The area where this occurs is the area where it is suggested an elk’s lower legs would be positioned in the elk scenario. Elk have very short hair on their lower limbs.

1. Not true. Front hooves are in the correct position, rear hooves are simply not preserved within the body of the cast and/or obliterated by the slurry-like mud immediately to the animal's right (as evidenced by several depressions that have the appearence of collapsed, slumped holes. They are preserved behind it though...but...he said, I said, so whatever, everyone look at the cast yourselves and make up your own minds.

2. Not true. Cows roll as they stand too. My explanation was lacking, but by "roll" I was referring to how the animal digs in its wrists, while at the same time extending its hind legs down into the substrate after partially tucking them up closer (but still not under) to the body. Horses do it far more athletically, but all hoofed animals can and do stand with a sort of rolling action to re-center their gravity since in the resting position, their hips are at 90 degrees to the dorsal vertebral column. That requires rotation of the lumbar vertebrae to rotate the legs from the side to the downward position, ie., rolling.

3. Not true. Hair details are preserved, though somewhat obscured and easily overlooked, from where the wrist dug in and shifted in the ground as the animal put its weight down while standing...see "he said, I said" though, then look at it for yourselves if yuo ever get a chance.

4. Where? Please do show these key areas and also refer to earlier posts regarding the tendency of hollow and buoyant hair (not specifically addressed in those posts, but worth mentioning) to be very mobile and buoyant in a muddy, cohesive substrate. The hair flow on the cast is identical to a large cervid. You highlighted an area on my interpretation as having completely wrong hair flow patterns, yet offered no explanation. When I went and re-examined the specimen, I found that my interpretation was for the most part correct...I only needed to adjust the metacarpal hairs that were too schematic in the initial sketch...but what about the body? Do tell...

5. Not true. Individual hairs are very difficult to differentiate in muddy substrate impressions. What's probably actually happened with these "3 inch long" hairs is that the tract of individual hairs is following a slight crease or undulation in the skin. Look at any horse, cow, or ungulate of your chosing to see the same exact thing. Also, a single hair can leave a long trail behind it if it is pulled along the substrate for a distance before being lifted. I doubt anyone would confidently guess hair length from a part of the body that was clearly mobile as the animal either sat, adjusted, or stood (like an appendage of an ape or cervid).

I realize that all I'm doing here is saying: "No no no and here's why," but I do appreciate colobus sharing his observations and information. This is the best way to share, air-out, and thoughtfully debate any topic. He offers his views based on his experience, and I offer mine, and anyone else can pipe up too with relevant observations and/or references, don't be shy!

Now, if I may be so bold as to make my own list of glaring points why it clearly is an elk lay: :new_lmaosmiley:

1) the hindlimb morphology is 100% identical to a partially folded elk leg. the thigh, shin, and metatarsals, complete with ligament and calcaneal tuber are all plainly visible and exactly the correct proportion.

2) the upwards flair of the dorsal margin of the iluim and its musculature are plainly visible and very characteristic of an elk.

3) the hair flow is identical to an elk's (see above though, then take a look at some photos and decide for yourself).

4) the tail is clearly present and of the right length to be an elk (far shorter than a deer).

5) the paired wrist imprints are a key diagnostic characteristic of ungulate lays and are clearly preserved, complete with reveresed hair flow on the left one, sunk in at 45 degrees to the viscous mud.

6) elk hoofprints are found immediately behind, immediately in front of, and immediately to the sides of the main imprint...it's surrounded.

7) all measurements of limb length, body proportion, and hoof size fall well within the size range of an elk. For example, the entire lay length is 48", while elk range from 39"-52" (see Elbroch, 2003).

8) no evidence for dermatoglyphic skin is preserved on the "heels" of the Skookum cast. The partially mushed imprints reveal hair flow patterns typical of the shorter metacarpal hairs on the lower limbs of ungulates. Again, refer to "he said, I say." The look at some of apeman's and tube's posts on what exactly dermatoglyphics look like as opposed to what artefacts and other impressions look like.

Not one of these points has yet been countered and/or disproved (except maybe 3, but not very convincingly). If anyone with a vivid enough imagination examines the cast, it could also be turned into: a kudu, an okapi, a large bonobo, a lion, a tiger, a tail-less mountain lion, a gigantic hairy-nosed wombat, Oprah Winfrey, and/or anything else with appendages and a hairy body. But sticking to what's actually observable, what's actully preserved, and what's actually been reported about the circumstances surrounding the find, it's virtually impossible to make a convincing and reasonable case for it to be something other than an elk. That's my only point. Other prints and tracks have a lot more going for them. If BF really do lounge around in mud puddles, rolling their nuts around for fun, it should be easy enough to set up some game cams near likely places (like, I dunno...Skookum Meadow) and catch one in the act. Otherwise, this impression is destined to simply join the other array of curiosities that continue to offer no compelling evidence that a huge, apple-eating, mud-loving, ape-man is lurking in wait of documentary film crews to taunt with his genitalia.

[Saskeptic]

The chances of a formal paper about evidence suggesting that an impression was made by a sasquatch has about a snowballs chance in hell of being accepted - no matter who's name is on the title.

I get a sense that you made this statement more from the perspective that the analysis just isn't rock solid enough to stand up to peer review, rather than the tired old "editors are anti-bigfoot" angle. If that's the case, then this may sound kind of mercenary, but my gut reaction was "then why bother any further with the Skookum Cast?"

If you think it's a sasquatch print but really aren't confident enough to demonstrate that to the satisfaction of peer reviewers, then why not use the experience as a tantalizing example of a method that could potentially be used to provide some new and exciting sasquatch evidence, and leave it at that. Instead, you could focus on replicating that method in the hopes of collecting evidence that could in no way be confused with any other known animal.

Just a thought.

[bipto]

I got exactly the opposite impression from the very same statement.

[Skeptical Greg]

The chances of a formal paper about evidence suggesting that an impression was made by a sasquatch has about a snowballs chance in hell of being accepted - no matter who's name is on the title.

I get a sense that you made this statement more from the perspective that the analysis just isn't rock solid enough to stand up to peer review, ...

I got exactly the opposite impression from the very same statement.

So the opposite would be :

" I get a sense that you made this statement from the perspective that the analysis is rock solid enough to stand up to peer review .... "


This implies that you disagree with Colobus' assessment of presenting a pro Bigfoot paper on the
Skookum cast, as opposed to Saskeptic's ..


Please clarify if I am misunderstanding you ..

This post has been edited by Skeptical Greg: Jul 21 2006, 12:28 PM

[bipto]

You are an attorney, right?

You didn't finish his sentence in your quote. You left out, "rather than the tired old "editors are anti-bigfoot" angle." I got the impression from colobus' statement that to submit a paper would be useless since editors will not take bigfoot research seriously.

And you know that's what I meant.

[maxx]

The fact remains that you cannot say it will not be published or reviewed unless something is attempted to be submitted.

This post has been edited by maxx: Jul 21 2006, 12:32 PM

[bipto]

No, it will not be reviewed because it will not be published because those qualified to author it know they will be rejected. So why go to the trouble?

It's not like they aren't conducting research on it or hiding it in Noll's rumpus room under the pool table.

[Desertyeti]

sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy then...
author: "See?! I TOLD you it'd never get published!!!"
friend: "But you never even submitted it for preliminary review by trained professionals."
author: "Exactly, man! Those damned professionals are biased!"
friend: "Word."
author: "Word."

[maxx]

No, it will not be reviewed because it will not be published because those qualified to author it know they will be rejected. So why go to the trouble?

It's not like they aren't conducting research on it or hiding it in Noll's rumpus room under the pool table.

So why bother to research the subject at all? I'm not understanding the logic. They do all this work, and stop just short of the obvious goal. Very very flustrating.

[Desertyeti]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

[bipto]

sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy then...
author: "See?! I TOLD you it'd never get published!!!"
friend: "But you never even submitted it for preliminary review by trained professionals."
author: "Exactly, man! Those damned professionals are biased!"
friend: "Word."
author: "Word."

Yes, isn't the world an unfair place?

[Skeptical Greg]

You are an attorney, right?

You didn't finish his sentence in your quote. You left out, "rather than the tired old "editors are anti-bigfoot" angle." I got the impression from colobus' statement that to submit a paper would be useless since editors will not take bigfoot research seriously.

And you know that's what I meant.

Really, I didn't know what you meant.. Really .. Because the opposite of what Saskeptic said, was pretty much what I said..


Colobus said it was useless, and Saskeptic said " Then why not try this ... instead "


I'm still trying to undersatnd what your ' opposite ' impression was...