I know this is going to sound a bit sick, but in my experimental archaeology days, we often asked Preserves or ranches for their dead elk/deer so we could butcher them with obsidian tools, tan the hide, etc. Probably the best bet (for safety reasons) is to try to get a flesh leg (not bones) of an elk (Roosevelt?) and experiment with mud and casts. If you can produce something that's close, then it would be worth trying to do a "live" experiment.

I think, judging by the similarity in the elk metacarpus and the "heel" evident in the photo I posted a way back, using a static or dead appendage would suffice for me and the others who already see the resemblance. But to people who still claim there's a big difference, it'd be best to use a naturally-ocurring, dynamic print for the cast. The elk responsible for the main portion of the Skookum cast evidently moved around a bit, shifting its forelegs, hindlegs, and readjusting.

Again, I've presented so far a stripped-down version of what I've actually found in studying the specimen. Colobus's comment about my interpretation as presented so far being "far from complete" is quite accurate. LAL's comment above that I had previously mentioned multiple impressions bears on the subject. I'm not trying to pull a Dfoot on you all, honest! But scientific publications are very up-tight about where material has been previously published, and I need to find out clearly whether posting figures on the forums here will count as previously published materials.

DY, Im not sure how you come to this conclusion. Can you elaborate on why you think this is the case?

Sure melissa, looking at the photo, and then the rough tracing, you can see that around each foreleg (lower right), and to the left of the hindlegs (upper left), there are several, superimposed outlines of the appendages. Typically, as an ungulate rests, or as it settles in after laying down, it will figit around a bit, readjusting its weight over its legs. Cats do the same thing. The result is a series of closely-spaced, superposed outlines of the appendages as seen on the main portion of the cast. It also results in deformation of the print, including enlargement if the animal shifts its leg without actually lifting and replacing it. The rocking motion causes the matrix to expand, making the impression larger.

How many scientists would actually visit that specific page on that specific website, and then have the time to actually visit the location of the cast? That's why I asked almost three years ago:



Having something published in a reputable scientific journal not only does away with the need to advertise on the web, it offers an opportunity for rebuttal, examination, and discussion (both before and after publication). It's been almost six years since the Skookum cast was first discovered/identified, if it was that compelling as evidence for bigfoot, where are the published results? They may be respected scientists, but they've remained strangely silent.

RayG

Thank you DY.

I am no expert on any of this. But, I would have to say - those impressions you discuss look very well formed to me. I do not see the movement you discuss. I would expect to see multiple impressions of the appendages, even if it was small "adjustment" movement. I just dont see that.

Im sure the arguement now will be - "but the animal could have laid on the first impression that showed movement" - sure, thats entirely possible. But the outline of these appendages looks very well defined in my opinion, and movement would have altered that outline much more than I think you are discussing. This would have been a large animal - I would think to adjust any weight whatsoever, that movement would have been much more obvious.

Just my opinion...

Oh, no doubt the final impression of the appendages (the ones left when the animal was finally still before it moved on) are very clear. You're absolutely right. That's how we can pick up the hair imprints, ligament impressions, and even joint surfaces.

The outlines I'm referring to are the hindleg's initial imprint (the line furthest to the left in the top left corner) and the 2 impressions to the left of the foreleg in the lower left of the cast. I'd point arrows to them if I had the softwear here to do it, but...alas. It looks like there's a series of steps leading up to the foreleg in the lower left. That's the superimposition I'm referring to.

On the hindleg, the leg was first stretched slightly more to the left before the animal pulled it in tight against the body. That's why there's the initial imprint of the metatarsus to the left of the clearr leg imprint.

Final thought for the day:

Imagine that a friend, lover, or family member shows you a weird imprint in the yard and says it's from a lion. You make a cast of it, and realizing you don't know much about lion prints, call up some buddies who breed cats for a living and show it to them. They agree that it's big, it's lion-like, and heck...it could very well be a lion. Hot-cha! You're set.
Then one day, along comes a gal with a Great Dane, and she mentions that your friend, lover, or family member watches her dog while she's away on vacation. You look at the dog's feet and ...oh snap! They match your track cast perfectly! What's more likely? That a lion sneaked into your friend, lover, or family member's yard undetected, left a Great Dane-lik print, then disappeared, or that the dog left the big, lion-like print?

Thank you. Well, first let me say - I am at a bit of a disadvantage here, the picture your showing - is that the copy of how the "lay" was originally casted - or is this the other version.. My eyesight isnt what it used to be. I see the area your discussing - but could you please post a picture of both the "Male and Female" version of this track cast? That would be very helpful. If I missed the post of both these pictures I do apologize.

One thing also I cant help but bring up - I see the elk tracks.. How do you reconcile they are going in the wrong direction? If this is an elk - it had to stand up eventually, I would expect to see elk tracks either within the track itself - or ahead of it (based on the pictures I found on the Internet), and I would expect to see tracks to the front and to the side. The only elk tracks I see, are going the wrong direction to be this elk standing up or even to get into the laying down position.

Wrong direction?! OH NO!!!!!!
Actually, elk tracks have the emargination on the rear of the print. The front end often appears nearly rounded like a horse's hoof. These prints are facing forward and they're located where they'd be expected in a normal elk lay (one in the chest area and two more highlighted to the side). There's also a couple more I didn't show on the interpretive sketch...it's preliminary. As for the counterslab, here's the "male" and "female" parts...that always sounds vaguely dirty to me...

And for those like me with no elk handy you can still have fun experimenting with track making. Try standing up from the purported BF pose shown for the msker of the Skookum Cast without leaving foot or hanbd or knuckle prints. Go on! It's lots of fun. Then look at the elk hoof prints set down where they should be and try to figure out just how that wiley BF managed to make it's butt cheek have the same contours as an elk's thigh as it managed to avoid leaving any foot or hand prints. Mind boggling indeed.

Doesn't that assume that your body and mine are built in the same proportion as a bigfoot body? Might they be able to do things with their longer forearms that we can't? I don't know the answer. Just asking.

I think Desert-yeti has offered a pretty solid explanation for the impression. The burden now shifts to the proponents of a Bigfoot based solution.
Mike Dennett

I understand that one chapter in Dr. Meldrum's upcoming book is devoted to the Skookum Cast.

We may have to wait to see how thoroughly he addresses the elk question, if at all.

E`mar`gi`na´tion
n. 1. The act of notching or indenting the margin, or the state of being so notched; also, a notch or shallow sinus in a margin.

Tracks - The track of an elk is larger and rounder than that of a deer and somewhat rounder and smaller than that of a moose. The more rounded part is anterior. The front is pointed like toes should be, as that is what they are in fact.

Straddle: 20 cm (8 in) Left to right
Stride: 65 - 70 cm (26 - 28 in) Left front to left rear
Track: 10 cm (4 in) long / 7.5 cm (3 in) wide

Sorry. but I believe I was right. They are the opposite of what a horse would be like, even though a horse has but one toe touching the ground when standing, walking, striding or running. Also the legs seem like they should all be on the same side of the body.

An elk also has 4 joints on each of its front and rear legs.

Thought these things were already done? At least it was shown to have been on the Willow Creek DVD set. But if you are proposing to do it again to fit better with your theory go for it.

Anterior in this case means the front part of the track.

The front part of an elk or deer track is sharper then the back part... you can see this in the picture she posted.

Wolftrax is right. Slight error... Anterior means towards the front... the above should have been stated as the posterior. Emargination on an elk or deer track is at both the anterior and posterior of the hoof. A horse looks like a semicircle with an opening towards the posterior. With elk, the sharper end of a track indicates the direction of travel or forward to where the head is located. No biggy... sure everyone understood that.

Came up for me, but it took forever to load due to my dial-up and Adobe Acrobat 6.0 insisting on telling me everything it's doing.

Yep, as I wrote in the report, the anterior (front) of an elk print is rounded.
The posterior (back) is emarginated (notched).
On this photo, front is at the top, rear is at the bottom.
The prints on the Skookum Cast are pointing towards the anterior (front) of the cast just as they should.
I'm not fitting anything to a theory...I've fit my theory to the data. :wink:


Actually...the opposite is true. The rounded (anterior) part indicates direction of travel. The emarginated (forked) margin indicates the rear end. The photo of the mounted specimen above shows a flexed, non-mobile hoof. The print below shows the emargination at the rear. Also, see Elbroch's book for numerous other examples.

edited due to lack of coffee and coz I still cain't spel.

Looks to me like the smaller radiused part of the hoof is facing forwards. The larger radiused part is facing towards the tail end... unless they mounted the legs backwards. LOL I don't understand your reference to a non mobile hoof. The hoof is hard with the two toes allmost inmobile in life. How would that make a difference? I have been very close to these animals, observing their use and morphology. Also the hoof is split down the middle, both ends are emarginated. Direction of travel is towards the smaller radiused part of the hoof. The picture shows this.

Or 6 actually. :wink:

Though we generally don't think of them, the foot/hoof joints (pastern and coffin) have some movement so should technically be included.

Not to insult anyone or to be condescending (I'm sure you know this Melissa), but for anyone that isn't used to thinking about ungulate anatomy- remember that 'ungulate' actually means "having hoofs" (nothing to do with stomachs), which ungulates generally walk on (e.g. the tips of their toes) or unguligrade (versus plantigrade like us or digitigrade like cats and dogs)...which is part of what makes their anatomy so different. Sorry about that sloppy sentence. Ungulates like elephants and rhinos are different.

So...
hoof = fingernail
coffin/pedal bone = finger tip bone = 3rd phalanx
short pastern bone = middle bone of finger = 2nd phalanx
long pastern bone = base of finger = 1st phalanx
cannon bone/metacarpal (which seems like lower leg, and functions that way) = (is actually the equivalent of the) hand bones

everything else (radius/ulna, humerus and scapula) corresponds to us.

The area most in question on the Skookum cast, for anyone having trouble following along, is argued by DY and others to be the top part of the metacarpal (blue arrow) when it is folded under.

That's Apeman's anatomy lesson for the day (not just a one species show!). Quiz tomorrow, study up.

AM

Click to view attachment

Edited to add:
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse the above posts- took me a while to put this one together and check my facts.

Also, about the PDF, sorry again, forgot that...the top of the first page has the page numbers but the citation (e.g. journal name) is whited out...or maybe this is a pre-pub version? It shows " , , 1-19" but no reference info.

I think we're saying the same thing now DDA.
The hoof has a roughly D-shape to it, with the left side of the D being curved inwards slightly to the center.
The rounded margin of the D (the right) indicates direction of travel.
The inwardly-curved margin (the left) points to the rear.
The Skookum Cast elk prints are indicating that the animal's front is at the "knee" or "heel" end of the cast, just as it should be.

Damn it's frustrating not being able to stand next to somebody and point out stuff on a diagram!

My referrence to the mobile hoof was that, as you know from your observations, the phalanges splay uotwards as they're rotated out and away from the folded position in rest. The articular facets cause them to flare slightly medial and lateral from midline, therefore spreading the two halves of the hoof. As you point out, hooves are hard, but the digits are quite mobile, as seen in the images of resting elk, where the digits are flexed nearly 180 degrees opposite their position when the animal is standing.

Also, as I'll show in the figures that I'll be posting shortly, the dorsally-projecting, anterior blade of the ilium is plainly visible along the right margin of the body outline. This is yet another diagnostic characteristic for an elk body impression.

Couple quick things:

Can anyone provide basic measurements from the cast? I've found the overall dimensions but can someone show me the cast with a ruler or tape across it, or exact measurements between two clear points. Anything?

Aside from what I pointed out earlier, I'm struggling with two issues right now:

1. It's very hard for me to imagine a big ape lying down in the mud. I've got an email to west African colleagues who study some of the wading western lowland gorillas to see how they act in or near mud. But I have a really hard time wrapping my head around a gorilla or chimp laying down in the mud for any reason other than being about to die (hold the 'drag through the mud' jokes). Maybe some do, perhaps my bias with eastern gorillas will show here, but wasn't it also cold in Skookum meadow in September? I know, I know, the mud and earth is almost always WARMER than the air, as dogs like to show. Elk too perhaps. But apes? They don't dig burrows, they build nests. OK, one can only extrapolate soooooo much with an unknown species, and we're talking about TOTALLY different habitats (even though there is PLENTY of mud here), but I hope my point is made and I would very much welcome photos of any wild apes lying in the mud.

2. The heel seems way too thin to be an ape. Sure it's been said to be more 'robust' than a human heel and arguably more than an elk wrist, but here that mostly means 'bigger.' Look at DY's photo from the exhibit. Then think about how thick the ankles might be expected to be on this animal. I don't have any great shots from gorillas (because of the hair), whose anatomy can be expected to be somewhat different because of their locomotion, but even the PGF figure (which, granted, could be fake) doesn't show a sharp achilles tendon. Ape ankles are THICK (don't we alwats hear this about the PG figure?) and I'm not sure an achilles is even palpable on a big gorilla. Their heels aren't as pointed as ours, they're rounded, and if we are to believe ANY BF tracks, BF feet are the same way. BF heels- as they hit the ground- are, proportionately, more like gorilla heels than humans (if we accept that any of the tracks are real). In fact many tracks, descriptions, and even Meldrum's images depict them as square'ish, not pointed (like humans). We're not just looking at the achilles in the impression, the heel is there. That just doesn't 'compute' in my head with what is being suggested as a BF heel? ...but maybe the impression is thought to be a little oblique? It doesn't seem that way from the images I've seen?

Apeman,

PS- In comparing images I can find of the heel impression, it looks like what DY photographed at the display (a repro) is a lot 'beefier' through the achilles than the original cast- see arrows below. I realize these sort of artifacts occur in reproductions but I'm wondering if this is a fair assessment or perhaps an illusion from different angles or something? DDA?

PPS- A little premature, but, is anyone else starting to feel that house of cards thing in their stomach? Vocalizations :black-eye:?.....Dermals :black-eye:?.....S-k-o-o..................... I'm fear I'm starting to worry why so many of my friends and colleagues think I'm an IDIOT. :icon_bang_flip:

Click to view attachment

Opps.. Thank you Wolftrax and DDA and Apeman

DY - When we look at even your own sketches - and you make note of the elk tracks, the direction of travel is absolutlely from left to right (if you look at your sketch). Now, if this is an "elk lay" - I would expect to see tracks that would show a direction of travel from right to left - the animal would have to stand up eventually (and even walk into the mud to get into position to lay down). I see no elk tracks that show a direction of travel from the right side of the castings or your sketches, to the left.

Now, if its your contention that these tracks that are seen in the casts and in your sketch, are those of this elk while either laying down or standing up - then this elk has a problem.. Its feet are on backwards.

Here is a photo I took in Pocatello of the feature on the original cast that I believe is claimed to be the heel, or at least one of the heels. I was trying to capture the surface detail, but the lighting in the hall was not good. I shone light from my flashlight in an attempt to get some oblique lighting. I believe I can see some surface ridge detail.

I'm sure better photographs of this feature have been taken.

Still not sure what you mean Melissa.
On the sketch, the head of the animal is facing down and to the right.
The butt is to the upper left.
You say (correctly) that the tracks are coming from the left to right...so...ummm....huh?
What's not right here?

Nice photo Tube!
You can clearly see the hairs flowing parallel to the metacarpus and carpus.
Cool!

Why? Is the only reason you are involved in bigfoot research because of the skookum cast? Dermals? Vocalizations? If we don't question ourselves and make sure whatever research we do is the best it can be, then we are going to be thought of as idiots. However, I also don't think that ALL dermals or vocalizations have been thrown out...just the bad ones.

That's a good point, Hairyman. Just because one particular bit of data isn't what it's been thought to be doesn't mean any or all of the rest is equally faulty. So far, we've had case studies of only a few bits of data: a few purported calls, a few purported track casts, and now the Skookum Cast. But there's still a large pile of evidence that similarly needs to be poked, prodded, and dragged out into the daylight for serious scientific scrutiny. That's the only way to weed out the crap from th epotentially useful information.

Using your sketch - and also a picture of what the feet look like on an elk.

If Im wrong I will say it - but I dont think I am. As your sketch itself clearly shows the toe seperation, The direction of travel of this animal you point to is from the right side of your sketch to the left. Also, there are no tracks of an elk that I am noting in your sketch - in front of this animal to show it stood up or walked away after being in the "laying position" either.

Just my opinion.

Um...sorry...the hoof prints are facing opposite your arrows just like you said above.
Remember, the emargination (notch, valley, whatever yuo want to call it) is on the rear (posterior).
Also, I should mention that the cast itself doesn't really extend past the anterior-most wrist more than a few inches, so the hoof prints left as the animal walked off weren't preserved in the specimen.

edited because DAMN my spelling!

You mean there wasnt even back hooves impressions as the animal walked away?

humm, maybe the elk got up on its back hooves and spun around putting its front hooves on the hard ground, and walked away? :wink:

Seems about as plausable as there being no impressions of even the back hooves as this animal got up to walk away.

double *Huh?!*
Have you looked at the photos and outlines of the ungulate lays I posted?
These animals typically don't leave hoof prints within the body imression (as I mentioned before).
They roll to the side that the hind legs are on (in this case, it's be to the left of the image), stand, and step forward. Don't forget, the image you keep referring to (my interpretive panel) is incomplete as I've said all along. Not all the hoof prints or traces are highlighted, just the main body trace that everyone always gets excited about, the coyote traces, and one of the boot prints. There are other hood prints on the cast. But since this thread (and the initial report) were about the main body of the imprint, that's what I focussed on.
This image might be better to look at since it's a bit more complete (thoug hstill not as much so as the final).
And just for fun, here's a cool image so yuo can see the upward-directed anterior blade of the ilium. Just like is seen on the imprint! Coooool.

You mean like a disco kind of move or more like a moon walk thing?

I prefer the "Electric slide" myself but putting a bit of a twirl on the end to make it more disco is kinda kewl..

How do you suppose a Bigfoot got up and walked away, without leaving prints ?

Well, I would imagine the way it is depicted in the BFRO drawings. Those drawings show the idea that this animals foot only went into the wet mud at the heel, the feet stayed outside the mud for the most part and the animal reached into the center..



Edited to add and to clear up my statement.

Last time you asked this, I told you the ground around the wet area in which the cast was found was too hard and dry to leave any tracks of any animals.

Next time you ask it, I will probably say the same thing (assuming I see you ask it - you might want to send a PM or something to help me out).

And I was just responding to another question about why the elk didn't leave more tracks..

Must'a been for the same reason the Bigfoot didn't leave any tracks .. You think ?

Yep.

Hey, this is fun. Let's do it again tomorrow.

And now for something completely different... Responses in this thread would just get muddied up here (no pun intended but it is kind of fitting and funny) and then there would be no program to follow and the fans would start to riot. They would mix up elk tracks with coyote tracks, apple remains with black tail deer prints. Not to mention 6" being t____________h__________i_________s long :wink: (you know what I mean gyrls) Oh well... Call in the umpire please. Boy if I only would of guessed at the interest...

Basically what I am trying to say is that there will be responses to all that Desertyeti has been questioning here but posted in it's own thread... and not by me. Why, :doh: because I have lost my ability to hypnotize. No really... professionalism.

I checked out the publication that Desertyeti intends to publish in. Wanted to get a copy of it for reference and see what they were like. Guess I will have to try and find a copy at the library or something... subscription is almost $800 a year. I have had subs that were $300 a year but this is a little much... it must be a very good publication. And to think, silly me :new_whistle: , I thought it was just about fish.

Hopefully this movie comes aross...

(Edited to include the movie so people had a reason for all that popcorn)

Uh..... I thought one of the goals of this enterprise from the very beginning was to get Sasquatch related material into mainstream scientific journals... If the advocate position is as strong as the skeptic position it should have the same chance being published, correct? If it is rejected it's always possible to contest that rejection or simply make your case in public, via BFF, private websites, or "vanity" journals.

Personally I'd like to see a very methodical point-by-point analysis from both "sides" as I have difficulty understanding how "hair flow patterns" in the cast match the animals they are claimed to match. I'd like to see photographs of the "heel" feature compared with elk joints. I'd like to see photographs of the "heel" that include a measuring tape to assess how coarse the ridges are that are claimed to be dermal ridges. At this point the ridges strike me as as rather coarse for dermal ridges, but I'm not fully confident in this assessment. I'd like to see the results of tests on the substrate to see what level of detail the substrate could hold. Was the substrate indeed capable of holding features as fine as dermal ridges? It seems easy enough to find out.

I understand DNA tests were run on hairs from the cast. According to Legend Meets Science they were "inconclusive" being too degraded. What were the results of this and other hair analysis? Will we ever see the test results in print vs. on a TV documentary?

I hope I speak for other people who look forward to an analysis of this cast that reads like a geometry proof. Yes, I understand experts have looked at and pronounced it a bipedal primate. But what are the criteria by which they have come to these conclusions? How about a Skookum cast primer for us n00bs?

I am very interested in the details as well.

someone forgot to add a camel to this graphic.....

Click to view attachment

sorry--- i know :couch:

Good idea. But I for one fully admit to failing to do better homework before I plunged into this thread. I suggest to the mods and admin that a good start would be putting the dozen or so Skookum cast threads into one sub category. I think this important piece of evidence warrants it's own area.

AM

PS- Hairyman, Melissa, and others- Don't worry. I realize only bits of dermals and vocals have been discredited and there is a lot more out there. That's why I'm still here. But there have been some pretty significant body blows delivered in the last few months. Someone even PM'ed me about the fear of a Gimlin admission right about now!

I would never fear that...as it will never happen!

Not to worry.

Opposing viewpoints are in the batters box.

Quote Apeman:

"PS- Hairyman, Melissa, and others- Don't worry. I realize only bits of dermals and vocals have been discredited and there is a lot more out there. That's why I'm still here. But there have been some pretty significant body blows delivered in the last few months. Someone even PM'ed me about the fear of a Gimlin admission right about now!"

Well, to be honest - I am after the truth, regardless of what that turns out to be. I would imagine with all types of research things change as they are proven or disproven, That I would expect.

No one should fear the truth.

Quote DesertYeti:

"They roll to the side that the hind legs are on (in this case, it's be to the left of the image), stand, and step forward."

Hi Ok, gotta ask this. Lets assume for the sake of argument this is an elk. Now, if this specific animal did what you suggest - shouldnt we be seeing the weight shift in the mud? And also, wouldnt you agree - that when this animal moved around in the mud to stand up, it would have caused the loss of detail, especially the hair? "Rolling" would be (I think) pretty destructive to fine details one might find in wet mud.