A blind test would be best but in all likelihood the answer would never come back as sasquatch which, in this case, is obviously one of the considerations. I really doubt anyone not looking for a primate type of form would find one in the cast. I think that's probably the biggest problem with evaluating the cast in an objective manner. To consider that it would be a sasquatch impression one would have to seriously consider the existence of the animal. Anyone evaluating the cast that does not consider it will be looking for a known animal and more than likely try to fit one into the impression. It doesn’t matter if the opinion is that it is an elk or a cow, the only thing that really matters in this argument is, “Is it a sasquatch impression or not?”

DY, I thought you made a good presentation. Looking at the "heel" in conjunction with the elk impression was really enough for me. Unless there is something in that purported heel impression that differentiates it from an elk, then it's not good evidence of anything else.

Unbiased in my opinion is a group of mixed scientists - that understand Ungulates, and primates. Unbiased would be not telling them a thing - putting them in front of the cast and asking them to evaluate the ORIGINAL. Not a picture of it. Seems pretty clear to me.

As near as I can tell - your "paper" will be based on your own opinion - question, will you leave open the possibility you may be wrong.. ??

Oh you bring up the opinions on the patterson film -- big difference, no one in those threads are putting together a "Scientific Paper" based on information gained by the internet or a couple hours of looking at the film in a museum... Big difference. Just my opinion.

I have told you my problems with your conclusions - and I think their valid ones, you just choose to not take them seriously. I would imagine the people who studied the original have a pretty good idea which way those tracks are going - and I happen to agree. But, who am I

:laugh:

Oh sure - just blow me off for huntster -- I see how you are now.. :laugh:

Shouldn't the first step to be (as Rick and his group did), to try to fit known animals to the cast? Only if one does not fit, should a hypothetical animal be considered.
And thanks, dbdonlon, the presentation was purposely dull and stuck only with what's visible in the cast. The site surrounding the cast is discussed in the full manuscript.



All papers are based on the researcher's opinion of a dataset. Otherwise they're simply a collection of measurements, photos, and drawings.


No one here is either. But I am putting together a paper (which is scientifc in that it adresses a hypothesis with data and tests the hypothesis), based on my observation of a specimen, knowledge of animal tracks, and comparisons with published examples of similar traces.


Again...the impass.

You got that right Tex (just probably 'cause no one has called you that yet), but to submit it blind for evaluation would be a losing proposition IMHO if your goal was to look at sasquatch as one of the possible answers. In this case it almost seems necessary to identify sasquatch as a possible suspect even if the evaluator is biased one way or the other. I guess when your dealing in the world of cryptozoology the rules need to be bent just a little.

How big them Chupacabra's get in Texas?

Quote Melissa:


Quote DesertYeti:


Oh Im sorry.. How much time did you spend with the original cast? I musta missed that, I do apologize.

Didn't study the original. Since it's perfectly reproduced it wasn't necessary to. What's that got to do with the fact that it's identical in every observable way to an elk lay? :new_tiredsmiley:

Identical in your opinion. You havent convinced me. But - I wont be convinced by work done on copies and photographs of the copies or observations and measurements made in the course of a few hours.

I wonder how many man hours have been put into the original ?? Anyone know?

I don't, but I found this while exploring bipto's thread on Skookum Cast threads:

"When the cast was being examined in depth the first year after it was found, it became clear to those involved that elk had to be looked at as a possible candidate for the maker of the impressions. The challenge internally was to "prove" that it was not an elk that made the impression, as it was recognized that that was the first thing people would suspect. The videos referenced above were just a small part of the effort that went into examining elk as candidates. Other things looked at included:

Size, length of long bones, joint sizes and shapes.
Hair flow patterns on elks ( and other large mammals in the area)
Elk habits in regards to laying down, bedding, wallowing, and standing-up.
Elk urination habits (generally they urinate near or on the area they have bedded down on).

Elks were observed in the wild, on farms, and in zoos. Elk and deer body impressions were examined and photographed. A heel cast made from the larger Skookum cast was shown to a zoo curator who maintained the elk at a large metropolitan zoo. This professional was adament that the cast he was shown was not made by any portion of an elk's anatomy.

In all aspects of the investigating of elk, it was found that:

1) The size was wrong.
2) The shape of the impression itself was wrong.
3) The "heel impressions" of the Skookum cast were much larger, more deeply impressed, and the wrong shape to be from and elk. (They were in fact the exactly "right" shape for a bipedal primate however).
4) The hair flow pattern found on the cast could not have been impressed by an elk unless the animal had repeatedly (4x) got up and selectively impressed certain portions of its anatomy overlapping each other, without ever leaving tracks when it stood.

The elk tracks found in the Skookum cast are those of animals "in transit", and not those of an individual standing-up. On the cast there are also tracks from Black-tailed deer and coyote.

In addition to the above stated enquiry, the cast has also been looked at by many noted scientists very well versed in ungulate morphology, and none of them are of the opinion that elk were maker of the impressions found in the cast.

So rest assured - elk did not make the impressions found in the Skookum Cast." - colobus

Here are three photos that appeared in the write-up here: http://www.herper.com/crypto/Homin2.pdf that I linked to earlier. There is no question that the purported heel exhibits ridge texture. The photo that interests me most is the top one in this montage, the closeup.

I'd like to see some scale in the second picture posted by tube, but it seems to seal the deal. That impression seems very unlikely to have been caused by a bipedal animal simply plopping it's heel down in some mud. That impression has a lot of apparent depth--the kind caused by a heavy animal laying much of it's own weight on the object causing the impression. It looks--to my admittedly untrained eye--to be ground in pretty good. I wonder how just the weight of a foot could cause that.

At any rate, thanks Desertyeti for starting this thread. I had previously never really considered the Skookum cast one way or the other. I guess I'm now pretty firmly in the "probably an elk" camp, for what that's worth.

Just how would the knee get rolled around to increase the size of the impression of the heel while the impression of the tendon stays sharp?

I'm really trying to envision this contortionist elk, but I'm getting nowhere.

A heel strike wouldn't impress deeply in soft mud? If the animal was using the heel to scoot itself closer to the fruit, I think it would impress quite deeply. This animal was an estimated 8', wasn't it? What would a leg weigh?

Probably not to the exclusion of the rest of the anatomy.



Me too. I also think it probably would have slid around some, being in mud and all. Not just the heel, but everything. I see no evidence of said scooting. The animal that made this impression appears to have been quite stationary. I'm almost certain it would have extended it's "forearm" much farther away from itself to provide greater support. I know, bigfoot aren't built like that. Except that they are said to have greater upper body mass than we, and shorter legs. Which makes it even more unlikely.




I dunno. Like I said, I've never really looked at it too in depth. Why? Because even if it is a sasquatch imprint, it can't be definitively shown as such and so gets us no closer to solving the mystery.



Again, I don't know. But we're talking about a foot, not a leg.

The only thing that's going to solve the mystery is a is a capture or at least one body.

Now, back to the cast. If the animal scooted and then stopped the sliding marks would be obscured by the marks left when it rested.

Again, if the heel imprint is from a wobbling knee, why is the tendon imprint so sharp? Anyone?

Oh, yes.



They would? Elaborate, please.



Conversely, why wasn't it--according to your above theory--obscured by the sliding?

And I apologize for breaking down your post and responding to each point individually, Lu. I know that irritates many people for whatever reason. If you are among them, forgive me. :biggrin:

I've been asked to respond to some of the things being posted in this thread. I'll begin to do so in this thread, and continue to do the same in another thread where I will offer much new information about the Skookum Cast impression.

To be fair, all avenues of inquiry are fair game when looking at such evidence, especially evidence that some put forward as possibly being an impression of an animal not recognized by science. Thoughful, accurate analysis of all possibilities is ideal. However, inquiry in the absence of quality analysis leads to shoddy conclusions.

Desertyeti is apparently a person who is an expert in the trace evidence of an animal's passage. Be that as it may – he made a cursory inspection of a male and female copy of the Skookum Cast and felt that was enough to pronounce a resolution to the origin of the impression in question.

In actuality – the analysis and diagrams put forth by Desertyeti are so full of errors, omissions (hopefully inadvertent), and poor quality of information, that the resultant conclusions fall apart like a house of cards when examined closely.

DY fails to differentiate elk tracks from deer tracks, doesn’t recognize that a fiberglass copy is not the same quality as the original, and envisions elk that roll to their feet rather than gather their legs under them (In fact the positive and negative duplicates of the Skookum Cast are missing a good deal of the hair detail (perhaps 50%)).

Many of his assertions are incorrect, and his careless analysis of clear animal sign make me less than impressed by his skill in trace evidence analysis. What is truly egregious is the suggestion that those that suggest the impression may be the result of anything other than an elk lay are shoehorning their data into preconceived notions. Such talk by one who has offered an analysis so riddled with errors and omissions is laughable.

No one will ever be able to prove that a Sasquatch was responsible for the Skookum Cast impression. What you are going to see in the coming posts is some of the evidence why many very qualified primatologists, anatomists, wildlife biologists, and academics feel the impression may be from an unrecognized animal.

So to begin – a small sampling of errors. Additional information is to be found in the official Skookum Cast Thread.
Click to view attachment

Here's the other Skookum thread colobus referred to:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...=15671&st=0

I'm not. No worries. I do it myself sometimes. Makes things clearer, I think.

I don't know that it did scoot, especially after reading the new thread. Newer impressions would tend to overlay prior impressions. If I were to slide my thigh and then let it sink in, I think the mud would tend to well up around the deeper impression and obscure the slide mark. I don't happen to have a mud hole handy, so I'm using my imagination. Feel free to test it experimentally.

If the heel was dug in to propel the body forward, the heel wouldn't have slid. So, again, why is the tendon so sharp if the "knee" was wobbling? If that's supposed to be an elk's lower foreleg, can someone show me a photo of an elk with a "shin" that narrow and sharp? Or is it supposed to be a hind leg tendon?

These are Roosevelt Elk, the only ones that should be considered here:



http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2001Outwest/Paci...rsE/Default.htm

The elk ramming the car was evidently in Yellowstone.

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/imageDetails?...er%26ie%3DUTF-8

Colobus points out some useful, and not so useful apsects of the preliminary sketch.
I've repeatedly said this is the first draft, and a fuller, more accurate interpretation exists, and I accept the fact that he's only working with what I provided. So, fair enough.

As to his problems with my interpretation:
1) first, he correctly points out the inaccurate coyote track at top (yep, this was corrected on the final).
2) He points out print travel in wrong direction for the upper right elk track...odd since I never indicated travel direction, I only traced the outline...so it's a strawman argument.
3) "numerous problems with this area" explains nothing at all, so is useless as a critique. It equals: "I don't like it."
4) colobus assures us that an elk's hind legs are too thin to make the imprints, but again, see above.
5) he points out a "black tail deer track" but I never labeled it as anything other than "hoof", so see above.
6) he interprets the wrist as a hoof side-mark, but offers no explanation (see above again).
7) "grossly incorrect hair flow" and "incorrect hair flow" are based on...well, again, see above, and as I jeep reminding everyone, the final draft is more complete (and I realie that that means not a hill of beans since I haven't shown it to the forums).

So, I'd suggest that colubus has made an admirable attempt at poiting out fundamental errors, and I'll take his observations under consideration as I re-examine the specimen and my interpretations. But I'd also suggest that 2-6 above are completely subjective and/or strawman arguments, while 1 is fair, and 7 has some merit. But I thank him for his time and consideration of my work.

Also, a number of people have wondered why I examined a reproduction and not the original. Two reasons:
1) the reproduction is close to where I live and easy to get to on weekends. :new_lmaosmiley:
2) most ichnologists and paleontologists actually prefer to examine monochromatic casts as opposed to the original specimens when seeking morphological data. Obviously, it is also best to see the original as well, and I hope to at some time. But the casts have the advantage of being all one color, thereby eliminating errors associated with discolorations, stains, and matrix adhering to the original. These can all create false impressions of shadows, textures, and structures that simply aren't there.

I promise to take a break and digest all the new info but before I do I want to post what I was working on comparing heels. I'll just throw this out for thought and reference for now, partly because I'm awaiting some expert opinion on how a gorilla heel might change if gorillas became bipedal... :new_whistle:

Click to view attachment

Thanks apeman!
Nice images indeed.
It's very important too, to remind folks who might not have waded through all 347 pages (slight exaggeration) of the thread, that aside from the "heel," the Skookum Cast exhibits the following, diagnostic elk trace features:

1) clear thigh/knee imprints.
2) clear ilium and haunch imprints.
3) clear metatarsal imprints.
4) clear metacarpal imprints.
5) clear hoof imprints.
6) clear cervid (deer and elk family) hair-flow imprints.
7) clear, though mushed due to movement, sternal imprints.

Diagnositc primate characters include:
1)...an elk wrist that sorta kind looks like a human heel...maybe...possibly...

But no problem with the contortionist Bigfoot ? Of course not....

Here is one of the problems with how DY is doing his reasearch.

It is obvious that he sent only information about the cast that supported his point of view to Mr. Elbrock. I'm sure he didn't forward any of Mr. Noll's.
Interesting that Mr. Elbrock thinks that people think the cast is of a sasquatch scrotum. Wonder where he got that idea from the non biast information that DY sent him?

Elbroch's responce

I'd support your deductions (if this is where you are
going!) that what we are looking at is unfortunately
not the scrotum of a sasquatch, but rather the typical
lay of an ungulate--a deer-like animal. I didn't
scrutinize the tracks as I should have, but everything
was right for a deer rather than goat or other.

When I pointed out that Darris Swindler was a skeptic before he examined the cast DY asked where Darris made this claim and I pointed out in LMS. According to DY claiming something on TV doesnt count. He also discounted Mr. Swindler because he is only a primate expert. Mr. Elbrock isn't a primate expert and I'm pretty sure doesn't know much about primates. I would think good scientific study would want both sides to study the cast and then give their thoughts. DY discounts Swindler who examined the cast for days and touts Elbrock who only saw his pictures, drawings and biast view of it.

I don't know if the cast is Elk, Squatch or Matt Moneymaker taking a mud bath. I do know one sided investigation does not make for good answers.

And are email responses to inquires from strangers worth more than a comment made during the production of a television documentary?

This isn't part of my research though.
My research involved me, myself, looking at the specimen with my own eyes and forming an opinion based on my experience and knowledge. But let's not get bogged down addressing specific data or anatomical features...

I only offered Mark's opinion since others on the forums offer up their "favorite" experts' opinions to support their cases. Yes, I'm a heel and I am duly ashamed.
Mark's comments about the scrot' come from me highlighting all possible scenarios to him. As someone else pointed out above, the idea that the ungulate lay was a result of a primate probably wouldn't occur to anyone familiar with North American wildlife. Besides...I wanted to know his opinion on whether I was missing it or not (it's not like I made it up!).

Bringing u pDaris Swindler again has nothing to do with the interpretation of the cast. T.v. statements do not count as official published opinions. Sorry, it's true. And I do indeed think that a North Amreican tracker has a far greater likelihood of recognizing an elk lay than does a primate researcher...how is that so wrong? Or relevant?


Depends on who's offering the opinion...now how does that take away from the fact that the cast most closely resembles a reclining elk print?

I guess I'm a little slow. Let me see if I have this figured out.

An impression is found photographed and cast. Numerous trackers and scientific types study it for days. Do measurments and compare it to the most likely known animals and say it doesn't match the known animals. They say the hair pattern and size of some features dont fit the most common other animals. They have a different possibility and say that it deserves further research and that research on it isn't complete.

DY. looks at the coppies of the cast a few photos and desides it is Elk. Says the hair matches elk and every thing else is in just the right place to be elk. Even though the people who studied the actual cast say otherwise. DY says his reasearch isn't complete on the subject yet also.

DY has something big on his side. We know elk are real We know much of their behavior and have many examples of their features. Not so with Sasquatch. We cant even prove they are real. If they are real we can't say anyting about there features or habbits for sure.

It is my opinion that the scientific community as a hole will side with DY on his opinion of what the skookum cast is. Not because of good science but because they will not accept any evidence if doesn't fit their opinion.

Many would not believe the skookum cast is a print of a sasquatch even if they has film of one making it. They would just say it is a hoax because sasquatch doesn't exist.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make to DY is clearly is being lost. I have problem not so much with his opinion but his attitude. It my not be what you are trying to say but you come accross, at least to me, as if you are saying this is my opinion and everyone who doesn't go along with it is wrong. You may have looked at the cast longer than me but you are not qualified to judge it. You appear only to accept the conclusions of those who agree with you to be valid even though they may know more about the cast than you do.

If I'm wrong DY I'm sorry but that is the way it comes off to me.

Way to many people on both sides of the sasquatch debate state things in absolute ways that only serve to degrade real honest attempts to find the truth. It is hard enough with a scientific attitude that it can't be evidence becaust it doeasn't exist.

The old saying. You know what happens when you assume.

Not only that, but his study of the fiberglass copy of the original cast which is missing 50% of the hair lay transfer, took place over the course of a few hours. While the other examinations have undergone countless hours of intense examination. In DY's opinion it's an elk artifact. But it's one man's opinion.

Dan C

When I get back I will try to upload a small film of a female lowland gorilla doing its thing... Then I will have shown ya what elk do and what gorilla do. The films are not fake. They are of known animals. You can try to argue against them if you want but remember one thing... The only burden of proof we have to produce is that Bigfoot is real... we have been trying to do that for quite some time and have quite a bit of evidence supporting our conclusions. What you need is a film showing an elk doing what you think it did to make this impression and right now I am seriously wondering if you have ever seen an elk.

The tracing tasks you have done in the past... can you show us a typical example? I am interested if they were always of known species, bones or cartilage, scales or skin, hair or plant impressions.

And this is documented where ?

I am not Mr. Elbroch.

Are we playing To Tell the Truth? That was a great show...

"Will the real Mark Elbroch please stand up?"

Does anyone know where we can find information about follow up expeditions
to the Skookum area, in search of further Bigfoot evidence ?

To say that the part purported to be the achilles tendon is anything but that is actually comical. The clay mold of it is identical to a human achilles tendon, only much larger. Why wouldn't an elk walk right up to the fruit, I don't think their neck is long enough and they have no arms or hands to grab the fruit from that distance. To think accomplished experts could not tell the difference between an achilles tendon and rolling knees or anything else is really reaching. I also think elk would be less likely to hunker down in the dark while most predators are on the prowl. Maybe an elk was there but something bigger and badder and heavier came along and wiped out its prints. In the end I can't believe that experts in anatomy like Jeff Meldrum, Esteban Sarmiento,and many others can't tell an achilles from knee joints or other parts. I strongly doubt the ''just an elk'' theory. IMO the achilles is the smoking gun in this. Most elk body parts don't resemble human feet. Maybe lots of elk are seen on roadsides because they stay out of the thick brush for less chance of being stalked and pummeled by a squatch, although lots of squatch sightings are at roadsides,maybe looking for elk. LOL,LOL.

Why wouldn't a sasquatch?



Well, you're right there. Now, how many bigfoot body parts do you suppose resemble human feet? Let me guess: the feet, right? Or more specifically, the heel. Now, show me where you can compare the heel of a sasquatch to the heel of a human. We could easily compare an elk knee to a human heel. If they match up--which they seem to do in this case--then bigfoot is pretty simply not part of the equation.

I have a feeling if it was an elk it probably went to sit near a damp cool spot and noticed the apples afterward.

I wouldn't think an elk would be looking for apples in a mud hole. Also I'm not familiar with the area, are there wild apples growing around there?

There are lot of other explanations for an achilles-like impression (for example, imagine it was originally more rounded but the sides/top edge rolled in), but regardless, suppose that interpretation is correct and a sasquatch did lay in the mud and they have an achilles tendon virtually identical to a human. Would anyone contend that such a feature would thereby pretty much rule out the Patterson film being authentic (see the 'comparisons I posted earlier)? That is to say, could a sasquatch have both the human-like achilles in the Skookum cast, and a heel some might argue is TOTALLY inconsistent (i.e. much thicker and with no obvious achilles, like an ape) in the Patterson film? Are these two pieces of evidence mutually exclusive on that element and if so, which one is more likely to represent a real sasquatch? Note: I'm not (yet) making that argument, and realize the PGF leaves a lot to be desired in asssessing the heel/calf region, but I'm just tossing out another morsel to chew on.

Q: Has anyone compared the curvature of the Skookum heel impression with any good footprint casts?

Apeman

No, not that I know of. There are 7 native crabapple species, but I don't know of any growing in that area, but we did have wild cherry. Skookum Meadow is surrounded by forest. There's apple growing country east of the Cascades, but the domestic apple is a descendant of an Asian species.

"The wild ancestor of Malus domestica is Malus sieversii. It has no common name in English, but is known where it is native as "alma"; in fact, one major city in the region where it is thought to originate is called Alma-Ata, or "father of the apples". This tree is still found wild in the mountains of Central Asia in southern Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Xinjiang, China."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_(fruit)

Alma? Interesting.

Apples may not be an entirely unknown food to a Sasquatch. But I think the usual way of testing might be to smell it and if it smells good, eat it. and I've personally seen snapshots of what appears to be a trackway in snow on a farm in Oregon near The Dalles. Possibly there have been forays into the orchards at times, but I don't know of any reports of this. There have been sightings around The Dalles.

Elk would tend to eat an apple whole and not leave a peel behind.

Can anyone post a pic of the apple peel? I've never seen it.

It's shown on LMS. I haven't tried doing a capture yet. Maybe that's a good one to practice on. See when I get it figured out in a month or two............

Thanks, maybe I should just get my own copy of LMS. I think a buddy of mine has it and I could just....

Tsiatko has spoken and we can all rest easier.
I wonder how many people who are so quick to slam my preliminary report have actually examined the specimen with my interpretation in hand, and judged for themselves...
Has anyone else, other than those who've already studied it, found the nine (9) complete and partial hoofprints on the cast?
Maybe others have also noticed the very clear impression of the elk's dorsal and anterior ilium?
Surely those who assure us all that I'm clearly biased and missing something have recognized the fact that the wrist....sorry... "heel" is in fact emplaced into the substrate at a ~45 degree angle, so looking at a photo of it gives the false impression of a wider-than-is-actually-there heel?
Of course, I needn't even mention the fact that two additional metatarsal impressions are clearly preserved since qualified people would recognize my silly opnion as a Pabst-fed Kafka dream.
Well, assuming everyone has, and since I have been ordained no longer qualified, I'll skulk away now.

But first let me address the growing legend that the fiberglass cast is of much inferior quality to the original. The replica reveals all the very fine textures of hairs, hooves, and textures on the pads of the coyote prints that are needed to recognize within moments what the cast represents. I'm amused by the people who still make a big deal of the fact that I and others who are familiar with animal tracks and sign are able to recognize diagnostic features of elk lays. Sure, it might take days, weeks, months, even, dare I say...6 years for someone unfamiliar with certain tracks and prints to recognize one when staring right at it. But think of cars as an analogy. Someone familiar with cars can rattle off make, model, year, and minutae of details after seeing one whiz by at freeway speed. Someone completely unfamiliar might take a photo, read up, study, conclude the car was a completely different make, model, etc., but still be missing a few obvious clues that indicate otherwise.

Lest we forget, Saint Grover himself dared to publish papers on the hypothetical anatomy of a BF foot. And he did this...glasses on for safety, please...using nothing more...arms down and at your sides...than replicas of the very suspicious Bossburg Cripple. Yes, he presented his educated guess based on copies of the originals. Heresy! Charlitan! Damn you and such!

Oh...and about that "smoking gun" achilles heel.
It's measurements, when rotated back into the vertical plane (not the apparent angle caused by its placement in the cast) and reproduced in the model on display in various venues are:
2.95" across the widest portion of the base
0.25" across the widest part of the tendon
~2.0" across the widest portion of the "shin." This measurement is tricky due to the sedimentary smearing around the shaft of the limb, but gives a good approximation.

The cast of the elk metacarpus on exhibit next to the Skookum Cast:

~2.9" across the widest portion of the base
~0.25" across the widest part of the anterior ridge formed by the (non-flexed) ligament
~2.0" across the widest porion of the midhsaft.
These measurements were hindered slightly by a glass case, but using on-site measurements, and later calibrating with a photo including a scale bar, they're probably pretty darned close...but I wouldn't want to publish them just yet! :wink:

edited to add:


DDA is of course correct. I have never seen an elk*. :new_tiredsmiley:
Nor do elk lay down in the ground for any reason, ever.
In fact, elk don't realy exist at all.
But again...let's not get bogged down with explaining measurements, morphometics, detailed anatomy, or actual trace making...it's way too hard.
So...my turn: "Oh yeah?! Well, you've never seen one either, so 'nyea!"

*this is a sarcastic statement and completely untrue for anyone who might not recognize it as such.

Lonesomeseer is a buddy of mine here locally who visits here every now and then to mostly read, sometimes he visits me here and hops on my computer, although he hasn't been here to do that in over three weeks. I know him well. He is definitely not Mark Elbroch. I won't out his name without his consent, if he chooses to come foreward and introduce himself then great, that's his decision. I'm just glad one of my local friends decided to start participating here with me. I hope you guys will give him a warm welcome, I'm giving him a good reference. I'm sure the IP got ran on my buddies account and it came back to very close(but not the same) to where mine originates from, but I can assure you it is a completely different account than mine. We were both logged in at the same time the other day, from different locations, if anyone bothered to noticed.

Heya Lonesomeseer!
Thanks for your comments.
I'll hoist a Pabst to you.

I believe only an imbecile could read colobus' recital of the treatment of the actual original cast and assume it was brief and cursory.

Dan C

DY Wrote:

"Lest we forget, Saint Grover himself dared to publish papers on the hypothetical anatomy of a BF foot. And he did this...glasses on for safety, please...using nothing more...arms down and at your sides...than replicas of the very suspicious Bossburg Cripple. Yes, he presented his educated guess based on copies of the originals. Heresy! Charlitan! Damn you and such!"

What's even more hilarious is that accepted science has Gigantopithicus drawn with nothing more than a couple jawbones and a basket full of teeth; The entire history of the human race has been written with so few fossils that they could all be placed in a fairly small human coffin with room for a real body on top; Human ancestors have been identified and artistically rendered from fragments of jaws and pieces of brow ridges. Yes, I know, at least these are real fossils, but to assume a human form and render it for view seems premature given the quantity of evidence to support the rendering.

Dan C

Three jawbones and 1100 teeth, according to Russell Cichon.

I believe you have violated the forum rules..
I expect a moderator to take note, and I expect to see that you have been warned ..

That said; I also believe the use of ad hom ( by itself ), indicates a total absence of anything of substance, with
which to contribute to the discussion.

I could be wrong.

Wow. I actually strongly agree with Greg.

That's not o.k. in any sense.