Was unsure where to post this, so stuck it here. Mods feel free to move to more appropriate area.

Hello Dr. Meldrum, I've been involved in a discussion about your comments regarding the Skookum cast, and was wondering if you could provide some clarification.

In the original press release of October, 2000, you stated:



In a more recent interview with Autumn Williams (January, 2005 newsletter), the conversation went like this:



How did you go from 'significant and compelling new evidence', to 'never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling'? Which statement best captures your most recent thoughts about the Skookum cast?

- significant and compelling new evidence
or
- not all that compelling

RayG

I guess I put my right shoe on first that morning.

Seriously, I would have to attribute that seeming change of opinion to a better appreciation of different audiences. During the initial examinations I was among colleagues sharing to varying degrees my understanding of ape and wildlife anatomy and sign, who could appreciate the significance of what we were looking at.

Subsequently it bcame evident that the subtle significance of the cast was lost on many onlookers, who didn’t have the faculties to interpret it, e.g. those who insisted it was made by an elk (some without ever having examined the cast itself). It was quite some time after dealing with those concerns that I did the interview with Autumn. In retrospect I should have phrased that something like – “It is true that the skookum cast will not constitute compelling evidence for the skeptic or even the open-minded individual who simply can't recognize or interpret what they are looking at.”

With that caveat I would have to say that the two statements were not intended to be contradictory, just reflected a different perception of the capacity of the respective audiences.

Dr. Meldrum,
Have you made a final determination on the "Skookum Cast" ?

Inconclusive ?

Valid ?

Keep it or Toss it ?


Respectfully,
Joe Kent--> "ELVIS!"

I cannot get excited over the Skookum cast for a couple of reasons and here is one of the ...... For a massive creature to have lifted itself off the ground - either its feet or its hands should have been the last thing seen in that print IMO. I have heard it said by some that the animal somehow keep its feet to the outside of the impression so not to get them muddy. If that were true, and I feel it to be a stretch, then if the alleged animal didn't drag itself to the outer edge of the impression so to get its feet directly under it so to be able to stand up with its legs, then it had to push itself up with its hands and do so without leaving hand prints inside or near the main impression and I have yet to picture how that can be possible.

Bigfoothunter

Well, from what I have gathered from discussions - most animals will avoid stepping their feet into muddy areas - as it will hinder their movement should they need to make a quick escape. -- This is what I have been told, but I could be wrong.

I have seen the skookum cast replicas at the ITC in San Antonio Texas. I was suprised at the detail I saw, to be honest with you. I didnt think I would see the details I did - and I said as much to others.. I had to eat my words on that one. If you ever get the chance to see these replicas -- do it. The hair pattern and lengh still has me wondering. The hair is too long to be a deer, or an elk - I just dont know for sure what made that.. But I sure would like to find out.

You know, Im not sure how an elk gets back into a standing position the way it does --- but, some how it does manage this neat trick.

I say let the work continue on the skookum cast.. I am looking forward to any other information we may gain from this.

Can anyone explain to me the significance of Leroy Fishes Boot Print?

He and Randles placed bait. It was from that, I believe:

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

Or from checking it:

"On their way out, Randles, Noll, and Fish decided to stop and check the roadside mud pool that Randles and Dr. Fish had placed fruit at the night before. Some of the fruit, but not all, had been taken. Three of the original six apples were missing. Some of the melons showed evidence of having been pecked at by birds. They noted elk, deer, coyote and bear tracks in the mud pool. The three noticed a large impression at the eastern edge of the mud pool. It took several minutes of studying the impression before they finally deduced that it was possibly made by a sasquatch sitting down at the edge of the pool, and leaning over to grasp the fruit in the center. The three immediately returned to camp to inform the others."

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







Try rolling. Push off with an elbow.

Rick Noll has mentioned the possibility that there were footprints that were obliterated when the animal sat on them. The ground was quite hard around the mudhole and it was beside a road.

Colobus' instructions for doing the "Skookum Roll" (I hope he doesn't mind me posting this again):

"Basically the area in which the impression was left was quite small in dimension, and it was immediately adjacent to hard packed murram road surface. From the place where the putative heel strikes occurred, the foot, already bent at the knee, would only have to move a foot to the right before being placed on hard ground. The place where the putative right arm made a double impression was about 15 inches from dry hard ground to the right again. If you site on the floor on your butt, with both knees bent at about a 30 degree angle, imagine where the dry ground is located to your right. With your right leg and foot, move your heel over say fifteen inched to the right - put it on dry ground. The with your right arm and hand reach over 15 to 18 inches to dry ground. Now rolling right, shift your weight onto both right foot and knee, and right hand/arm. You can get up with some exertion - without leaving tracks in the impression beyond the putative heel strikes already present. If you happened to be considerably larger it would be even easier.

As far as the elk is concerned - elk always leave prints in the center of bedding areas when they get up. We've got lots of video and still imagery to back that up, as well as photos of elk beds in mud and snow. All of them have tracks in the center grouped closely pointed the same direction. Extensive analysis of the lengths of the anatomical features impressed into the mud, comparisons with ungulates - including elk, and other large mammals such as goat, bear, and so on find no match with whatever made the impression. Hairflow pattern analysis of the impression show continuous hairflow along anatomical structures that is 100% in agreement with apes. The same hairflow analysis demonstrated that the hairflow patterns found could not have been produced by an elk in a series of multiple impressions that might appear to be one big impression. It just is not an elk.

Does that mean it's a sasquatch? Who knows, but evidence certainly points that direction..........."