This is Teddy and old friend of mine. Teddy is less than half the bulk he will get a few years after these photos were taken. I'm sorry these aren't better pictures. I will attempt to find better ones in the near future. Their in a box somwhere.

Please look at the lower legs and compare them to the heal and tendon parts of the skookum cast. Also to DY's dementions that he gives above. I'm sorry there isn't anything better for scale but I can assure you that the front of the leg is much thicker that the tendon in the skookum cast. and much more rounded. The man in the picture with Teddy is 5' 11".

Teddy's left front knee is oversized and not shaped correctly due to being shot through that knee with a target arrow as a small calf.

OK, Dan, you're warned. Stop calling Greg an imbecile.

Jimmy, put those scissors down, you'll hurt yourself.

Suzy, stop eating glue.

Is it nap time yet?




(Seriously, Dan, don't call Greg an imbecile.)

How about this perspective?...the problem I have with the alleged heel print is the roundness or lack of a fleshy heel pad.

Click to view attachment

This reminds me of the furor that got started when a Geologist noted that the weathering pattern on the Sphinx was primarily from RAIN water, not flood water or blowing sand, which would make the Sphinx at least 10 thousand years old, not the 4000 or so the Egyptologists said. To this day, they try to dismiss it because he's "out of his field"....when the truth is THEY are out of THEIR fields.

Non sequitor...the ground cannot be hard and unyeilding when you desire no other evidence and at the same time be soft and yeilding in regards to the evidence you DO want left...

The biggest problem with the photos I posted was lack of scale. Teddy'a lower leg is thicker that the supposed tendon in the cast. His lower leg is closer to two inches. And shoped much different. This picture from Colubus may help show what I'm talking about better.

Sure it can. A small moist, somewhat muddy area in an otherwise dry and hard area. Are you saying that's outside the realm of possibility? Why do you think they chose that spot to leave their bait?

You are probably not wrong. I am in egregious error and I apologize. Moderators, take appropriate action immediately.

Dan C

Already did.

Move along, citizens. Nothing to see here...

To DY, The above picture shows the ''ACHILLES TENDON"" next to an average human achilles heel, this is in post#256. When you said it really wasn't that big, it is quite larger than a mans. Considering girth this dwarfs a mans. This could mean three things,your measuring is off, your vision is off, you just can't accept it,or all of the above, I would suspect the latter. As much as skeptics say witnesses see things they want to see, I think skeptics don't see what they don't want to see. I wouldn't care if there were 100 elk tracks, which there probably was in the area. All it takes is one for evidence. So if there is only one achilles that is enough for me, and its a pretty good one at that. It also appears very deep. Did you measure the depth?It really couldn't be anything else. If this was a murder scene it would show that along with the evidence of elk, there is evidence of something being present that is not an elk. Maybe Andre The Giant came back from the dead to reenact his role as bigfoot in the six million dollar man.

Nice comparison Ty2!
Shows very nicely what I've been yaking about.
Now...back to all the people whov'e been assuring us all that an elk's metacarpus is so different from the Skookum Cast, it's like comparing Jessica Alba to Andre the Giant...

p.s....maybe Mulder's on to something...us geologists seem to always go around ruining everybody's well-crafted stories...sorry...we really don't mean to. :ohmy:

p.p.s Thanks for your input davemcc65,. If you head back to post 243 (I think...it's on the last page anyway) you'll find my measurements. There's also a nice photo of the elk's metacarpus, a human heel, and the Skookum metacarpus a few pages back.

I wasn't gonna run with them. I promise. :wink:

When looked at from a right angle (meaning perpendicular to the wode axis of the limb, not "correct"), the "heel" really isn't all that robust...certainly it's much less so than a human ankle in the area immediately above the wide, basal portion.

Note too, that the wider portion of the appendage directly adjacent to the main surface of the cast could well represent the distal radius and ulna (forearm), as suggested by the hair flow pattern, and apparent discontinuity between its major structural surface and the ""ligament" which is probably the metacarpus itself. Remember, an ungulate's limbs fold tightly as it rests, and the resulting imprint would appear to be a single structure even though it's actually a compound trace....but enough ichnology...

Thats the whole point of the thread isn't it? DY presented his research that contradicts that done by those who originally found and studied the cast. They say sasquatch DY says Elk...somebody has to be wrong.

OK, I admit to confusion here: are we discussing the ENTIRE area surrounding the part that was cast or the area of the cast itself? It was my impression you were discussing the latter.

From my understanding, the cast was taken from an impression in a relatively small area of soft ground in a larger dirt area that was hard and dry by the side of the road. It explains why there were no clear tracks found of any other animals.

Again, based on my understanding. Happy to be corrected if necessary.

The photos and video of the site show some pretty clear animal tracks well away from the area of the cast. If elk, human boots, and 50 lbs. coyotes left tracks, 800 lbs. apemen should have too...

Yes, they should. Can you post some of those photos?

There's a couple in this thread...or the other one...they get confusing. Apeman even did a nice overlay of the elk standing up in the mud. Might have been captured from the video, but I'm not sure. At any rate, they're already up and out there.

What?

Is there somebody out there that is positing that an elk ate the apple and left the peel?

I've never fed apples to elk, but I feed them to my goat regularly, and have fed them to moose. I've never seen either peel the fruit, and can't imagine how they would do so if they were so inclined.

DY. In another post you gave some sizes of the supposed heal impression of the skookum cast. I believe you said something along the lines that the tendon at its thinest point was something like .25" thick. Am I right that you saying it is a quarter inch?

I'm asking becasue I'm having trouble figuring out how something two inches or wider can be pushed a couple inches into the soil and only leave an impression a half inch wide.

I see how it works now. You photagragh the quarter inch object at a larger scale so when you put it next to the photo of the two inck object they look like there the same size. Makes purfect sense now.

If we were talking about slightly damp soil, then I could see your point, but AFAIK, the impression was made in wet mud.

Wet mud can do strange things. Next time you happen upon a nice sloppy mudhole, sit down beside it, take off your shoes(and socks!) and stick your heel in as deep as it'll go, then quickly pull it out. See what happens. As your heel and achilles tendon are lifting out of the mud, the impression should automatically decrease in size due to the effects of suction in concert with gravitational forces upon the weak soil mass.

Unfortunately, a good counter-argument was made by Gauri:

"Gauri attributed the degradation of the Sphinx enclosure primarily to the effects of a process which he refers to as 'chemical weathering and exfoliation' in which dew, forming at night on the exposed limestone, removes soluble salts from the surface of the rock. Capillary forces draw this solution into the pores of the limestone matrix, where further salts are dissolved from the internal pore walls. As daytime temperatures rise, the solution begins to evaporate, precipitating salt crystals within the confined neck of the pores. The pressure which the crystals exert as they grow, leads to flaking of thin rock layers from the surface of the limestone.

Gauri argued that this process had operated throughout much of the accepted history of the Sphinx and was continuing at present. As Gauri explains it, the effect of chemical weathering on the bedded limestones produced a 'vertical profile of the Sphinx and the walls of the Sphinx enclosure made of alternating projections and recessions'.

It is important to note here that the degradation described by Gauri, which results from the action of chemical weathering and exfoliation, is controlled by the bedded nature of the limestone, with the less durable units (those identified by the Roman numeral 'i') receding further from the cut face than the inter-bedded more durable strata. The process identified by Gauri therefore leads to the development of horizontal banding across the exposed limestones, as can be clearly seen on the body of the Sphinx."

http://thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=...icle&sid=93

A better analogy might be the the furor caused by the heretic astronomer, Dr. Gerald S. Hawkins, over Stonehenge. I don't think his findings have been debunked yet.

In studying the very clear picture in Murphy's book, I find I can indeed see the hindquarters of an elk, left hind leg and all, now that I'm looking for it. I can also see the imprint of the side of a cute l'il bunny rabbit. Is that Dr. Fish's bootprint or a tic-tac-toe game? And, oh look, there's the man in the moon!

The question remains, if that's the imprint of the left side of an elk, how did it get out of that position without a helicopter, a Hoyer lift or a crane?

Was just thinking about Schoch today. Wonder what he thinks about Guari's hypothesis? I've not read anywhere where Schoch takes on Guari, have you?

Check this out:

http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx4.html

Home page here:

http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx2.html

I saw a tape on the water erosion hypothesis I found at the library. It really got me going. One archeologist claimed there's never been a case of monument building with a rather advanced civilization to go with it, but what about Easter Island? Habitation in the area could have been made of perishable materials that just didn't survive. Then some killjoy pointed me to the Hall of Maat (great site, BTW).

I still don't see much to support the idea that Khafre had the Sphinx built. It does sound more like a remodelling job.

Here's a bit on Hawkins:

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMHawkins.html

But we digress.

[

If we were talking about slightly damp soil, then I could see your point, but AFAIK, the impression was made in wet mud.

Wet mud can do strange things. Next time you happen upon a nice sloppy mudhole, sit down beside it, take off your shoes(and socks!) and stick your heel in as deep as it'll go, then quickly pull it out. See what happens. As your heel and achilles tendon are lifting out of the mud, the impression should automatically decrease in size due to the effects of suction in concert with gravitational forces upon the weak soil mass.
[/quote]


I can buy that to an extent Vol. But if that is the case wouldn't you have the same affect with the elk tracks and and other features in the cast. Coyote tracks, hair impressions, LeRoy Fish's Boot track and such Thay all held their shape very well.

That depends on the consistency of the mud, and certainly, the clay I've seen takes and holds pretty good impressions without shrinkage while it remains moist. Moist and soaked are two different states. Clay and "mud" are two different mediums. We refer to this as a mud wallow, but the make up of the soil is generally clay. We must keep that in mind.

Dan

If one had a breakdown of the water content that present in the soil when the cast was made, then a proper re-creation could take place. It would have been nice if someone had thought to perform an experiment in situ, making a test cast of an impression of their own heel, for later comparisons.

That is a good idea to keep in mind if good tracks are found in that kind of condition again..

I have seen several pictures that were taken before the casting was done. The soil looked soft enough to take good impressions but otherwise firm and not water logged. But I wasn't at the site durring the expedition so I am only going by what was in the pictures and what Dr. Meldrum passed on to me at the time

I know they did cover the impression with some plywood to keep it from dying out in the sun while the went to get more hydra-cal.

Some actual pictures of elk imitating a butt-balancing, mud-wallowing, yoga-practicing, fruit-reaching bigfoot.

Some of the elk are asleep.

http://www.bertola.org/essays/elk/coyotes.jpg
http://www.bertola.org/essays/elk/bigbull.jpg
http://www.atpm.com/6.05/animals/images/el...-campground.jpg
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~lqy/personal/p...k-sleeping5.JPG
http://www.cookecityantlerslodge.com/yello...dlife%20019.jpg
http://www.hoppyvisualproduction.net/ELKRo...%2004%20n23.jpg
http://www.hoppyvisualproduction.net/ELKRo...%2004%20n24.jpg
http://www.denverbryan.com/Newsite/photo/l...400-134.99D.jpg
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-...gsum/elk120.jpg
http://www.all-creatures.org/aw/elk-008.jpg
http://www.bbcanada.com/pics/5000f.jpg
http://www.rnsmith.com/pics/photo71013.jpg
http://www.nps.gov/yell/slidefile/fire/wil...mages/13865.jpg
http://www.mydeerhills.com/elk_laying_down.jpg

Couldn't find any comparable squatch pics, asleep, awake, or otherwise.

RayG

What about the possibility that a Sasquatch killed an Elk, threw it's body down on the mud and used it as a bridge to pick up the apple without leaving any prints, and then disposed of the corpse.

I call this the "Sasquatcha again suckers" idea.

Does anyone know if desertyeti ever published his final draft? Was it to be in Ichnos??

By way of bumping this thread for the related Monsterquest discussion....
No, not yet published but he's still thinking about it.

Click to animate.

Just that animation alone, forgetting DY's analysis, could be enough. At least enough to seriously question the hypothesis that it was 'something else'. For the ones that may still 'believe' the Skookum Skast™ is authentic, doesn't the supposed premise itself present legitimate 'questions', considering such hypothesis contains the notion that 'whatever it was' had to SNEAK UP ON AN APPLE IN THE MOSTLY DARK? "Hey Uncle Sas, there's an apple!" "Junior, shhhhhhhhh, don't scare it away...<tip toe tip toe>...be qwiet...be berry berry qwiet...<lighting match>....okay GOT IT...now, let's get outta here before the Feds show up and start askin us questions about this apple." <zoom>

You know I held a copy of the "heel" impression in my hand and examined it as best I could. It was impressive and I'm not afraid to say that. In a lot of ways though it was like reading a statement taken out of context. Without the rest there I knew there wasn't anything I could say but "Well that's interesting".

IMHO "Well that's interesting" is all this is ever going to be.

I will second that opinion and give you a big amen!

Very nice animation and should bring up quite a few problems with the Elk theory if you have really examined the cast.

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems to me the "problem" lies with the "sasquatch" theory

Explain the lack of front leg impressions under the body then. Certainly the soil was soft enough there and sufficant weight should have been available to leave long straight groves from the front joints connected to hooves. The hair pattern on the joint area would also show it going to the left in this picture when it actually goes the opposite direction. The hair on elk and deer go down the limb to the hooves. The hair is less then an inch long, hollow and very stiff and brittle.

By the same token, explain why there were no BF tracks leading to and from it.
"certainly the soil was soft enough there and sufficient weight should have been available to leave a large track path"

Then again we could both be wrong- this could be a bigfoot from the 82nd Airborne and that imprint is just an improper PLF ( Parachute Landing Fall)

The case for the Skookum cast being anything other than an elk/deer is just weak as water

Is this why Elk hair was found in the impression?

Also, does anyone know what effect sticking a hairy elk knee in the mud would do to elk hair?

Not according to

Daris Swindler

Or,

Esteban Sarmiento

Another person who feels there is something not elk about this impression is George Schaller. Im sure there are others I am forgetting.

While they all still have questions - they are at least not writing it off completely and are still looking at it in a scientific manner to try and figure this out.

Yeah, I've read about their views and honestly, they really mean less than nothing.

Their "opinions' are based on what? a VISUAL imprint and a hypothetical picture of what "may" be a BF laying there?

The burden of proof is on those claiming this is anything but what it appears to be ( an elk/deer lay)

Lets look at the "evidence"

there were elk hairs found, elk tracks found, the outline resembles known elks

There were no BF prints found, no hair ( with the now famous but totally inconclusive tag of "no known animal"), no blood, skin or any supporting evidence whatsoever.

So, what trumps what little circumstantial evidence there is? Wishful thinking and unfounded/unsupported opinions wont do it. Theres textbook "junk science" for you.

Occams razor applies.

I think its interesting Longtabber, you would take the word of someone who did their "scientific analysis" using a copy, hanging on a wall - rather than experts in primate anatomy, with years of experience in and out of the field. Who have actually studied this cast for years.

I find that interesting. Contradictory to the scientific method, but very interesting.

I guess this means If I want to study gorilla behavior in the wild, all I have to do is look up pictures of gorillas in my National Geographic

Thanks for lowering the bar. LOL.

You forgot, to add "rather than experts in primate anatomy, with years of experience in and out of the field. Who have actually studied this cast for years. "... and who produce and appear on Television shows, and make money on the idea that Skookum Cast is real...

Drew, do you have copies of their tax returns? Do you know they make money off appearances for sure?

Making comments like that, you better be able to back it up. As Longtabber will tell you, an expert being paid - does not make their opinion any less valuable.

I saw the credits