Where was elk hair found in this cast site? This is a very good question. The hair was collected from the soil that remained on the cast till it dried several days after being removed. Not imbedded in the impression surface. It was already in the muddy soil, beneath the top layer. We left up to 4 inchs of the soil on the cast surface.

If you know anything about hair then you know how long it remains in the landscape and that for every square inch of land on this planet ihabitated by animals with hair that can fall out The probability that it contains a hair or two is almost 99%. Just ask an animal tracker.

Elk hair will not bend over like that. It will break before bending. That is a field test technique for identification. Bend it and it breaks, it is ungulate, it is hollow and is an insulator. They don't have the fat layers like a bear.

You saw the credits?? Big deal. You think everyone listed in the credits is paid?? I could care less if someone is paid or not. Thats just a sneaky way of trying to discredit someone. Probably started by the legal profession, but none the less - its silly and really not worthy of discussion.

People deserve to earn a living - and I think unless you have solid proof - you should be less accusatory.

If people interested in this subject (the Skookum cast) did their own research about it (it is on the BFF here) then they would know what areas were soft and what were hard as rock. Dr. LeRoy fish has his boot impression in the cast. It was in a soft area. He weight over 200 lbs. His other foot made no impression mere inches away from the one that did. Does this tell you that Dr. Fish had only one leg? And that there was no proof that anybody else was at the site when it was found or cast?

I asked a question and you switched it to one of yours for an answer. Ok...

All of that is meaningless and circumstantial- it "proves' nothing.

You have proven nothing either Longtabber - or anyone else.

Seems to me the debate rages on despite the best attempts to throw water on the fire. Im grateful scientists with the expertise and knowedge are taking such a complete look at this cast.

Someone is at least giving it adequate attention.

I hate it when she calls my hand and knows what I have no option but to say.

Speaking as one in a different area, if i wasnt getting compensated, I wouldnt waste my time so i would fault them if they were NOT being paid and no, it doesnt make their opinion any less valid.





I'm not the one making the claim tho. At that point, opinions that are not supported by factual information or verified evidence are scientifically meaningless. That would be more along the lines of hearsay or at best an unqualified opinion.

The hurdle is, there was some "evidence' and none of it points to a BF.




There is nothing contradictory about it and if anything I raised the bar.

It doesnt matter if they studied the cast for a century- there is no evidence of any substance to shore up their opinions.

I drop the assumption that potential compensation has anything to do with their defense of the Skookum cast.

However, based on the Elk-like nature of the mud cast, and the lack of evidence showing that it is a bigfoot, we must assume there is something on which these experts would base their defense of it being bigfoot-made. 1. They truly BELIEVE it is from a bigfoot (emotional attachment), 2. They don't truly believe it is from a bigfoot, but are continuing to promote it as being such for personal reasons. 3. There is some sort of evidence which has not been revealed to the public which would cause an expert to believe it to be Bigfoot-made.

Then apparently you are not offering an expert opinion. Because those are usually formed with knowledge from doing study and examination of the issue in question.

At least I hope your not offering the kind of expert opinion Daris Swindler and Esteban Sarmiento are. There is no way you have that much first hand information.

I think Longtabber's or anybody's using a copy for analysis is fine provided they are aware of its limitations. For example, the head of the paleo-anthropology dept in Indonesia (recently deceased, r.i.p.)who was in possession of the Flores fossils still instisted on their being the result of microcephaly or some organic condition, whereas the researchers using casts were able to put together a very compelling arguement for these being from a seperate species. The fact that they were using a cast wasn't argued since the casts' limitations weren't overstepped. What's important is recognizing the degree to which a piece of evidence can actually be used objectively, not whether or not it is the original, even though we all recognize the touchstone like qualities we feel by having he orginal item in our hands, so to speak.
I'm appreciating this very objective look-back.

On this case specifically, it would not be an expert "opinion" but more along the lines of an expert "critique" of the findings.

Here are the facts in evidence:

They have a cast of a hole in the ground that "resembles" something.

It factually resembles the body structure of an elk

It also 'resembles" an artists conception of what a bigfoot MAY look like

There are no other signs of it being a bigfoot ( prints etc)

There ARE signs present indicating presence of elk

Elk are KNOWN to be in the area

BF have been reported ( never known tho) to be in the area

Hair samples concluded nothing ( except for a bend which is at best speculative)

All the kings horses and all the king's PhD's arent going to change the fact that their 'conclusions" are "unscientific" in nature regarding their opinion.

Its just another "could be" non argument based in a "what if" premise when what evidence available points to a more logical and reasonable conclusion.

Yes, a critique is not an opinion. For an expert opinion you would need at the minimum to actually know some of the details behind the finding of, and determinations after. You seem to be less than interested in all the information.

I dont understand why that is. I would think as a "scientist" you would want to arm yourself with all available information - to reach a conclusion. That just does not seem to be the case.

Even Tube agreed - when the original is available, that is what should be used for any sort of evaluation of the evidence. Looking at a copy is not sufficient. I agree with him on that.

Also, Desertyeti did not make the information available, that he actually studied a copy of the Skookum Cast, until it was brought to his attention - then he made mention and note of it. That is an important detail, since evidence and information can be lost in the copying process - and those who have seen the original skookum cast and the copies all agree that is the case.

Melissa, let me explain to you how this works regarding science and the strength of drawing a logical conclusions based on known when there are unknowns in the mix.

To quote Spock paraphrased "If one is on a planet with a known positive gravity and an object is released- one does not need to see the object fall to know that it did in fact fall. It had no choice but to fall"

I dont need to physically hold the cast ( original or copy), run a tricorder analysis or mind meld with it to have a scientifically valid opinion based on what has been reported about it.

There are plenty of pictures highlighting the "information" in the cast, there are plenty of "conclusions" drawn from it. I've read the "determinations' and on their best day, they are unsubstantiated OPINIONS.

For example, where is an actual REPORT ( not comments about findings) detailing what specific tests were run, the standards that were used, the findings and what scrutiny those findings were subjected to to shore up their authenticity.

Where is the DNA analysis of the alleged hair?

Where is a comparision of the sample against known elk hair and another "alleged" BF hair for aside by side analysis?

I "armed' myself with facts in the above post as well as this one.

So, I'll ask you

What "facts' are there regarding this "cast of a hole in the ground" that trumps an elk and points to a BF exclusively? I dont mean opinions, casual observations based on speculation or "tests" with no comparison or external validation.

Where is such a report?

My critique is scientifically valid as are my opinions regarding my ad hoc conclusion ( simple preponderance of knowns support the conclusion of elk) so where is all the 'evidence" that refutes that conclusion?

Whoops - meant to edit not post...

My bold.

Edit to add:

That actually cracks me up.

He says its always best - just not in this case? Parphrasing of course. LOL. You must be kidding.. Best, only when it suits the needs of the person conducting the experimentation or evaluation?

Is this really what science is?? God I hope not, but it would explain a few things.. Geesh.

This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts.



He didnt even know what he was examining for sure. Good Night irene - he could have been looking at something just freshly poured outback for all he knew.

Actually, science would be more like posts 310 and 312 and regardless of what Tube or YF examined, what were the results from those who did "examine' the original and how did those results size up against the observations in those posts?

What drives me nuts is unqualified comments from supposed experts where their fields arent exactly applicable making unsubstantiated claims that the body of evidence doesnt support.

How is someone who is an Expert in Primate Anatomy and Anthropology not qualified in your opinion? Please tell me. I would go to Daris Swindler or Esteban Sarmiento with no hesitation whatsoever. I want to know why you seem to think they are unqualified to render an opinion.

You are dancing around the issue or either not seeing it.

I didnt say their "opinions" arent qualified- what i said was they MAY not be because the "cast" is not KNOWN to be of a primate. Also, since their expertise is in primates and Anthropology, they are not qualified to rule OUT other species as well.

As to their "opinion'- thats fine ( I give mine all the time too) but heres reality, no "experts' opinion is any more valid than the FACTs used to develop it and weighed by the testing done to validate it.

I'm not impressed by the title 'expert" or a PhD ( I have both myself)- what i want to see is their analysis, testing, hypothesis, conclusions, validations. ( ie the report)

THEN we will see how 'expert" the experts are in their findings and how much water their "conclusions" hold.

I'm sure you know this from your career, no expert's "word" is standalone ( regardless of pedigree)- I want to see everything used to form and defend that opinion. ( thats what experts do)

George Schaller is an expert at ungulates as well.

Please use the quote feature to show when and what Tube was referring to when he said this.


This may be what JohnWS quoted from above, bit I remember quite clearly DY explaining from the beginning he had looked at the cast that was exhibited in Texas.

Good for him now where is the report with the tests, validations and evidence they used to back up their opinions?

I was presenting exactly what Dr. W********* (Desert Yeti - an ichnologist) actually posted in the first thread of this page 'sans' any need to interpret it second hand from another person's post. You may disagree with his methods, but he is the professional. If as an amateur enthusiast you choose to criticise his methods, that is of course your right .

Edit - Sorry Wolftrax - I missed your post. My quote was the first instance I could find of DY mentioning the origin of the cast he examined.

And this is the point I have been trying to make for a very long time. Until this animal is proven to exist - all we have are opinion. This cast has not been proven to be either a bigfoot or an ungulate. That is the only proven thing about this discussion.

We can sit here and argue all day long about who is right or wrong.. But, Desertyeti's opinion holds no more "water" than anyone elses - simply because he approaches this from the skeptical perspective. There are things about his work that do intrigue me and really makes me think, but I still have questions he has not been able to answer. Until those questions are answered or this animal is documented, or proven to not be possible - this cast could come out either way.

And wolftrax - I dont care what comment Tube made that in reference to.. Fact is, he said it - it applies and whats more, he was right to say it. No self respecting expert would give a qualified opinion on something such as this - without examining the original, especially if that original was available. This isnt a cast of a known animal, its a cast being evaluated for the existance of an unknown - no scientist would look at a copy and give an expert opinion, not in a case such as this. They know right from the get go, the original is going to hold more detail and potential evidence than a copy.

Using this standard, you must have the same disdain about Meldrum's theories of a midtarsal break in a bipedal ape such as sasquatch.




I believe you are referring to Tube's disappointment in realizing there was no clear chain of custody for CA-19, the Onion Mt. cast alleged to show dermal ridges. But again, you must have the same feelings for Meldrum's work into the midtarsal break theory in bipedal apes such as sasquatch.

Using this standard, you must have the same disdain about Meldrum's theories of a midtarsal break in a bipedal ape such as sasquatch.

Game, set, and match go to WOLFTRAX!!!!

And do you plan to deliver this lecture to those "amatures" who dare to criticize Dr. Meldrum, Daris Swindler or Esteban Sarmiento??

At least be fair.

It is my right. As it is everyone elses.

So there was no hair found on the surface of the mud before the plaster was poured into the depression? Elk, Bigfoot or otherwise? All of the hairs found were located down in the mud below the depression, so that it is presumed that whatever left the impression did not personally leave any hairs? All hairs found would have been from previous animal visitation? Did I read your communication correctly?

Was the depression checked for hairs before the casting medium was poured?

Yeah but there is still a lot of tapdancing and "inference" it is a BF

This is what is called a non argument.

These IS trace evidence ( as circumstantial as it it) and when compared to the 2 prevailing theories ( BF or elk) the stronger circumstantial argument is for elk.

>>>We can sit here and argue all day long about who is right or wrong.. But, Desertyeti's opinion holds no more "water" than anyone elses - simply because he approaches this from the skeptical perspective.

Theres an interesting comment ( from one who is always talking about bringing science into this) DY's opinion holds no more water because he is a 'skeptic"? So that means that someone approaching it from a pro stance based soley on belief and coloring their opinion holds "more' water somehow?DY and others have done a very good job at building a solid case against the BF theory- where is this "strong case" for the pro side?

>>>No self respecting expert would give a qualified opinion on something such as this - without examining the original, especially if that original was available.

Thats patently false on its face. A qualified opinion can ( and more often is than not) be rendered on pictures, reviewing reports of others. Sure, in a prefect world its always "best" to hold the question in ones hand but its not a "mandate" for accuracy.

Besides, what would "touching" or putting a magnifying glass up to the original casting glean that a visual review of high quality pictures and measurements ( which is done and available) do? There is enough data out there right now so what would actually "seeing it" produce that changes all that?

Thats arguing nonsense in an attempt to shore up a premise that is weak on its own.

>>>This isnt a cast of a known animal, its a cast being evaluated for the existance of an unknown

Interesting- just how do we "know" this isnt a cast of an elk? By this logic ( being "unknown") this cast could be from a landshark as much as anything else

>>>no scientist would look at a copy and give an expert opinion, not in a case such as this. They know right from the get go, the original is going to hold more detail and potential evidence than a copy.

Why not? But we keep not addressing the core question. From those 'experts" who DID examine the "original"- where is their report, conclusions, tests, evidence and validations that support their premise?

What more "potential" evidence can there be in a casting? What additional "detail" would the cast hold?

DDA, since you possess the original cast, can we see a clear photo showing what are alleged to be dermal ridges on what is alleged to be a heel, and it's orientation in relation to what is alleged to be the achilles tendon?

I certainly would deliver it as well as a pointed and scathing and critique of their findings and conclusions.

There was a lot of pictures I posted on the BFF for this and other topics. They were up for quite some time. I took them down. I won't be putting them back up.

Well, thats certainly your right and i support your decision.

Its another of those things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I noticed something interesting with that animated skookum cast display.

Who removed the misidentified elk wrist that was actually a slip? Im surprised its gone, since that was the last thing DY defended.

Did he change his mind?



There is a lot of tap dancing and inference from both sides. That remark is not specific to one side or the other.

Doesnt make either side right just yet - and until we have a definitive answer one way or the other, what this cast is of, is still unknown. You can argue what you think it is - that does not make it so.

Wolftrax: Well - its missing the wrist/slip. You might want to put that back in then.. Unless DY has changed his mind about that.

I created the animation. I did not remove anything from it.

Uhhh, yeah, there's really nothing to put back in since it wasn't there in the animation in the first place. Not necessary.

Then uhhh, its not a true animation detailing his work...

>>There is a lot of tap dancing and inference from both sides. That remark is not specific to one side or the other.

Actually no- it is specific to the pro Bf side

They are the ones who have the burden of proof and have to meet the standard. Between what circumstantial evidence and measurements known- the greater case and most logical conclusion is that of an elk.

Still waiting on all those 'findings" that clearly indicate its from a BF or even deep into the "unknown" category.

>>>Doesnt make either side right just yet - and until we have a definitive answer one way or the other, what this cast is of, is still unknown. You can argue what you think it is - that does not make it so.

Theres no argument to it- those who have conducted all this "experimentation' and made the initial claims are the ones being the most elusive about it. They are real quick on the draw to tell you what they believe but less forthcoming when it comes to any applied acid test. One has to ask why that is.

This is a casting of an elk that got a lot of publicity. The "known" scientific analysis done is garbage at best and sensationalized at worst.

Its real simple to see- lets look ( once again) at the tests conducted, the findings, the conclusions and the validity. If those who have done this are anything less than forthcoming with that ( since they presented the original premise) that that alone is reason to suggest something isnt right and even they know it.

Never said it was, though I would have to animate the elk to be moving in order to do that, which it is not, unless you would prefer me adding a third front leg (arm) and personally I thought if it truly was two elk hooves slipping that gave even more credibility to the impression being made by an elk.

I would prefer to see it the way DY claims it to be. Its his work - unless your picking up where he left off. He claims that is a wrist - so, lets see how that would have happened.

I am trying to figure out why this would intentionally be left out..

I made the animation after reading what he had written. This is what I see when looking at the cast after he had pointed it out. I happen to agree with him, and knowing where this is going yes, I did make a trip to Seattle last year at this time, it is where I was raised and spent the holidays with my family. I asked to see the original cast, photo and measure. For various reasons I was declined. I also had requested 3d scans of the original cast, which seemed to be what was done and shown in LMS. Those were either declined or there was a misunderstanding, not sure which and doesn't matter now.

Interesting

To be fair, I won't go into the reasons given for being declined to personally photo and measure the original cast but they seemed justifiable.

Fair Enough

I would've liked those 3d scans though!

I dont know

I just find a lot of the overall conduct and "revelations" regarding the cast somewhat "suspicious"

Well Melissa - IMHO (and that's all it is) reviewing the last couple of pages of your posts only, I don't recall ever seeing that level of criticism directed at any of the aforementioned's scientific methodology, by an amateur enthusiast.

Lecture? Hardly. I was very careful to attempt to post the facts I wanted to get across in as non confrontational manner as possible. I try ( ) not to be too confrontational in my posts- in fact the most heated 'discussion' I ever remember getting involved in resulted in the other party & I exchanging good natured PM's. Are you able to debate without recourse to confrontation?

I just said that in my earlier post .

Sorry for the delay in posting - a steak & kidney pie got in the way .

Edit for typo's and smiley additions....

Many of the questions being asked on this thread have already been asked and answered(and chewed up and spit out then asked again) on earlier threads. For those relatively new to the scene who might think they know what they're talking about when it comes to the happenings and events surrounding the Skookum Cast, here's a list of earlier threads devoted to the topic*, so hopefully next time they'll know what they're talking about -

11/19/03 - scookum cast analysis?, Are only BFRO people allowed to examine?

11/29/03 - Pondering Skookum questions and answers..., Just because nothing's sacred...

12/10/03 - Skookum Cast Heel Print, How large is it???

1/8/04 - Skookum Cast & Elk, Could the heel print be the Elks knee?

2/4/04 - Skookum cast?, maybe silly but

12/6/04 - Skookum Cast

1/26/05 - Skookum Imprint, Current Common Wisdom?

3/2/05 - replication of the Skookum cast!, Letting a gorilla do a similar imprint!

8/24/05 - Skookum Cast

1/29/06 - Skookum Cast

7/10/06 - Skookum Cast Specimen-Based Interpretation, Preliminary report

7/18/06 - The Official Skookum Cast Analysys Information Thread, Newly released information and analysis.

8/18/06 - New Poll on Skookum Cast

6/14/07 - Skookum Cast - Further Questions

If you're new into the scene(or even if you're old into the scene and need a refresher), It'd be a very good idea to go read the majority of these threads in their entirety, before making any pronouncements one way or the other.

*Thanks to Bipto, and I've added 2 more since the list was created

Get in line!

That is truly an understatement, LongtabberPE.

Vols - your a very wise man.

It's called getting tired of the same old questions over and over, the same requests for everything we had on the subject over and over... the answers are not going to change. Everything was pretty open at the beginning. A little searching and you should find all that stuff still here.

What might be hinted at here as being suspect I take it:

1. BFRO (Secret organization) involvement
2. TV show was present
3. 200 lbs of plaster present
4. Bigfoot Hunters actually were involved
5. Elk present in Washington forests
6. Never has been any proof that Bigfoot exists
7. Team members are reluctant to talk about it except on rare occasions now
8. No offical report presented (except for ISU statement, New Scientist blurb, Dr. LeRoy Fish's attempt to publish, Dr. Jeff M<eldrum's attempt to include with stuff he has written)
9. No scientific paper written up and peer reviewed
10. No followup expeditions (even now with everybody asking why people are still going to the site... go figure that one).

Did I miss any?