You are absolutely right - I confused your comments with those of Drew. I apologise.




I specifically said that I wasn't singling you out - it is a general statement that there are a lot of personal attacks on people, and no, you clearly can't see it - I think we are agreed on that.

All I am saying is a general 'cool it guys' - things are getting personal just lately on this forum, and if it carries on, I will personally be pushing the 'warn' button.

Please remember that posts that break the forum posting guidelines do not appear on screen.

That's all I'm saying about that.

Carry on.

What did the analysis show?

Regardless of what the Skookum cast shows (and I speak as someone that leans towards elk), I think the debate woudl be greatly benefited by the preparation of a scientific paper prepared by Rick.

There has already been analysis done on the hairs, I'd like to see the outcome of that. Black curly hairs in the middle of the NW forest, in what is claimed to be a Bigfoot lay, would seem like target #1 of any scientific targeting. DDA said above "I have never heard anyone who analyzed these describe their lenghts though" which means there was analysis done, I am just trying to find the results.

So am I, which is why I suggested that a scientific paper setting out ALL the results would be sensible.

Your welcome. Now, are you going to answer my question?

While that would be ideal, I think that publishing the hair analysis, which we know has been performed, would be significant by itself.

What purpose would getting only part of the overall picture serve? Surely you aren't going to form your opinion on just one small part of the evidence are you?

The overriding question that comes to my mind- why has there never been a full report in the first place.

That should be the logical conclusion of examining any artifact being used as "proof" of something.

I do agree, you need to see everything

This is one of the problems I have with with the idea that the impression was made from a sasquatch and the "Dermal Ridges" in general.

Below is an image showing the pattern of the alleged dermal ridges known from sasquatch foot casts as recorded by Jimmy Chilcutt, on the left. On the far right is the pattern alleged to be dermal ridges on the Skookum cast. In the middle is an illustration showing the placement of the dermals from the Skookum on the heel of the foot.

Notice in Chilcutt's illustration of the sasquatch dermals that the pattern contours around the heel, as seen here it is horizontal. Now look at the direction the Skookum dermals are going, vertically. This is a contradiction in patterns.

I didn’t think so…
Well, I don’t blame you for not posting them. The pictures are your property and it’s your prerogative to keep them out of public view, unfortunately, those picture hold the rest of the story.

What purpose would it serve to ask for something that you don't even know exists? Rick could write a paper, but we don't even know what analyses were performed. DDA said analysis was done on the hairs, That is what I am asking for. Sure everyone would love to see a complete analysis and presentation, but the only one that DDA says has been done is a hair analysis, so I'd like to see it. Also, if there has been scientific analysis done on the hairs, I'd like to see those results without a biased presentation if at all possible.

Another nice graphic Wolftrax. I think the area you are showing on the Skookum cast though really looks to be from the side of a foot. That particular area is not the best known of the heel strike areas. Its as if the outerside of the foot was placed against the ground and pushed into it. The illustration from Chillcut shows the outline of Wrinkle foot (1976 Blues Mt., WA?), both a left and right casted by Paul Freeman (AKA Elk Wallow tracks described in ICS Journal). Which is quite strange since those tracks are mostly known for what he claimed were healed cuts and abrasions. I can not see dermal patterns in the copies I have but that just may be the quality of my copies.

The hair was analyzed by Henner and LeRoy. In the past Henner has only grouped these analysis together to make a stronger case I think, never producing reports on single events or finds. You would have to take it up with him. LeRoy was going to author a paper with Jeff but he passed away.

I started a paper on the Skookum events and evidence collected but stopped short thinking it would be better to have it done independantly. What I wrote may be better suited for a book. I am not a scientist.

I agree with this.

I think to call the impressions on this heel "Dermals" is probably misleading. If what we are looking at has anything to do with the foot of a primate, I am thinking this could be skin folds and creases, not dermal ridges.

So basically there are no dermal ridges on the cast.

I see your response about the hair analysis re: Dr. Leroy

Thanks

I did not say that Wolftrax. I said, what I see in this image you posted, is on the side of the foot - not on the bottom. These in my opinion look like skin folds or creases. I have not examined the cast - I can not render an opinion as to whether there are Dermal Ridges on the cast anywhere.

I dont think many could give that kind of opinion.

I wonder if Mudd encrusted Elk hairs would make patterns similar to that...

It seems to be the location where dermals would be located if it were a big foot in the mud. But they are going the wrong way.

Actually Drew, they are where they should be if your looking at the back, or side of your heel. I actually casted these on my own foot. I even took photos showing these creases. We do have similar creases and folds on our feet.

Up until I took those photos I had no idea, and apparently many others felt the same way - as I have had many emails and comments in this regard.

Melissa,
How would you place the foot on this graphic from earlier in the thread?
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=425558
I am trying to visualize the side of the foot hitting this area.

Can you re-post those photos?

DDA-
Can you repost that foot drawing post over here on this thread?

Drew

This putative hill strike doesn't show the same dermal pattern ..

Thats because when everything that was posted on the board was still on here you failed to read about it. That is a different heel strike. Strange how people can argue about something without any background information.

Assuming for a minute that is a Bigfoot heel strike, how does it account for Bigfoot's univerally reported 'flat footedness' given the robustly 'round' shape in the picture. To create that imprint, it had to be pressed into the ground with some degree of force, not unlike a footprint, yet it doesn't show any obvious similarities to other purported 'authentic footprints'. There's no obvious flatness on the sole and there's no indication of any further 'broadness' to it. It would seem to me that particular example could be recreated fairly easily to see what a human's foot would do in the same circumstances/situation. Has that been done?

I can see it's a different ( putative ) heel strike .. It's about half again as big as the other heels.. If it's a Bigfoot, it looks like one foot is somewhat smaller than the other..

That said, wouldn't ( one expect ) the pattern of putative dermal features to be similar ?

If ungulate hair was found on the surface of the impression (as opposed to say imbedded in the mud after a Sasquatch sat on it) that is pretty compelling evidence an ungulate made the last impression.
(I guess one could make the argument that an elk happened to be by and shed all over the place after a Sasquatch nabbed all the apples but unlikely they would visit if they could smell the presence of a Sasquatch or another large animal.)

How do you determine whether some ridges in a cast are Hair Striations or Dermal Ridges? is there a scale? or is it based on where the ridges are?

Ignoring the hair debate for a second, in part because I personally don't think it's very important, allow me to try to summarize the current status of the Skookum cast, at least as I see it personally.

The pro-sasquatch side:
1. An elk (or any other known animal) can be (fairly?) conclusively ruled out.
2. The impression shows an apparent heel with achilles tendon that has convinced a number of primate anatomists (Meldrum, Swindler, maybe Sarmiento?)
3. " apparent dermal ridges " (Chilcutt, Meldrum, Fish, Krantz? Swindler?)
4. Using some imagination, you can kind of fit a large humanoid shape into the impression.
5. The hair pattern is consistent with a primate and not an ungulate- including on the disputed heel.

For me, the above argument really boils down to, it can't possibly be an elk (which I disagree with) or bear, deer, etc. therefore there is at least a good chance it is a sasquatch. And each of the above points can be quite easily challenged by the other side.

The pro-elk side:
1. It's the (exact?) size of an elk (which I don't think the other side refutes)
2. It's representative of the behavior of an elk-wallowing in the mud (ditto)
3. It's associated with elk hair, elk tracks, and elk territory (ditto)
4. The heel/achilles tendon is easily explained as a slightly distorted elk wrist/carpus.
5. There aren't actually any dermals.
6. The pointed triangular shape is very clearly an elk knee and in no way resembles a primate buttock.
7. It is very difficult to explain how (and why) a large primate could have gotten in and out of this position (which I don't even think it could sit in) without leaving other trace evidence.

So let's look at the con-elk arguments:
1. It has dermals: I for one have never been convinced of this and have refuted it because what I understand to have been portrayed as dermals are way too large; in the "wrong" pattern for any primate; inconsistent with Chilcutt's other standards; and inconsistent within the cast itself.
2. It has an achilles: I have tried to refute this based on the shape (much more narrow and pointed than known apes or the PG figure), lack of horizontal creases, but mostly I just don't understand why it couldn't be an elk wrist.
3. The hair pattern is wrong: We've seen some comparative hair patterns but I've yet to see a comparative pattern from a elk lay, or any evidence that hair length or direction (as it applies to the heel) can be properly interpreted from an impression. This aspect remains open for me but my suspicion is that it is ultimately inconclusive either way.
4. An elk supposedly couldn't stand up without leaving tracks (and usually urine) within the impression (even though evidence has shown this isn't completely true). First of all, I defy anyone to claim they know every possible way an elk can get up off the ground. For me it's like the coyote howl issue- what we see may not fit the norm, but does that mean we can rule out the possibility? Secondly, there is evidence that an elk rolled over (the funny "scrotal" hair pattern between the "cheeks") which looks suspiciously to me like a rolled back between two flanks. So why couldn't the elk have simply rolled all the way over (like ungulates are known to do) and then stood up (and even urinated?) on the hard ground where everyone has suggested tracks wouldn't have been obvious, but also where I've never seen any evidence (because it's partially outside the cast) that there were NOT the expected elk tracks? In fact, I can conceivably fit three properly placed and directed elk tracks as shown by Colobus within the cast and the fourth could have been under Fish's boot track??? But I also think an elk could have stood up the more obvious way

I have the utmost respect for Rick Noll and Owen Caddy and all the effort they've put into this interesting artifact. And applaud them both for not being fully committal on it being from a sasquatch. I remain somewhat surprised by the scientific interpretations/reactions of the others, but again, I've seen the cast in person but never properly analyzed it so refrain from passing any judgement on those interpretations until I've had the chance to do so.

I think DDA has recently answered one of my prior questions (confirming where the dermals were being seen) but I still have two others that I don't think were ever addressed:
1. Can you or anyone else show or explain the evidence for the hair direction determination (or interpretation) that supports the heel theory?
2. Is there any reason an elk couldn't have rolled all the way over (across it's back, not it's feet like I've previously wondered) and stood up partially outside the casted area as the evidence might suggest? That is, what did the area in that direction (towards the road) look like and were there approximately appropriate elk tracks in that area?

Apeman

Excellent Apeman. And very polite too. The bottom line is, what you've suggested and pointed out just can't be IGNORED, especially by ANY of the actual participants but also ANYONE ELSE (credentialed or not) that may be inclined to seriously consider it of Sasquatch origin. I've just never 'got' why the uncanny resemblance/coincidence to an elk lay is so understated by the proponents. Except for being 'living beings' and seemingly having hair all over their bodies, Sasquatch and elk have no real and obvious similarities, yet the 'impression' could just as much be a 'Sasquatch lay' as an elk? That just doesn't compute for me.

If I may add, I feel the position of the alleged heel and Achilles tendon impression does not correspond properly to the alleged orientation of the alleged Sasquatch supposedly depicted in the cast.
*excuse the blatant overuse of the word alleged.

To expound on what Harry pointed out, also on a post where I questioned the same thing in a Skookum thread last year. Notice the how the leg of the Sasquatch must have been bent to make the heel impression where it is in relation to the gluteus maximus impression.

On a human foot in approximately the same angle with the leg bent, to include both a heel and achilles impression it would also have to include most of the bottom of the foot. The red line being an imaginary mud line.

*Note, the filthy human foot used in this image is not mine..I would bathe before I took a picture of my own foot and post it here.
Click to view attachment



Now below, notice the orientation of the alleged heel and Achilles in the actual cast. It would appear that it would have to come from a leg that was positioned near parallel to the ground to make an impression that would remotely resemble what is being depicted as a heel and achilles tendon in the cast.

Maybe if the Sasquatch had incredibly short legs and no calf muscle?

Click to view attachment

Anyone see the simple logic in what I am pointing out?

I see what you are saying. The alleged Achilles heel in the cast appears parallel to the surface and given its depth,
the leg would have to be also impressed into the mud.

It always struck me that this achilles heel is too thin and narrow to be a Sasquatch's foot and as deep as it is,
there are no indications of ankles.

Anybody got dirty elk knee photos?

Awsome post Apeman. The thing that has always been curious to me, for both elk and sasquatch alike is the indication or lack thereof, of either getting out of the mud. Levitation? Maybe I'm not seeing the cast correctly, but after all it is interpeting impressions in the mud.

Very good point Ty, but in my opinion, what you point out *could* be seen as favouring squatch, since what we see in that alleged heel/tendon impression is exactly what Krantz describes in his book about the positioning of the sasquatch ankle being different to that of humans - ie, the sasquatch ankle is further forward making the heel more pronounced.

Look again at Krantz' reconstruction of the cripplefoot bone structure and you will see what I mean. If he is right, then the skookum heel is consistant with what Krantz had suggested for years.

Paul... Krantz's theory aside.

My point is the alleged heel and achilles impression does not correlate to the depicted orientation of the proposed body position in the cast.

With the way the leg would have to be bent the foot angle would appear something like this.

Click to view attachment


My contention is at that angle, the impression would have to include at least part of the bottom of the foot.

Nothing that we haven't discussed before, but maybe a good place to assemble a few related items in close proximity, free of some of the tangents that developed in the past.

More regarding the achilles..

Fitting the Sasquatch into the impression, seems to require contortions that appear unnatural, like playing a game of Twister .

A line along the plane of the achilles, should intersect the middle of the knee.

It clearly doesn't ..





One could say the overlayed Sas is not precise , but when you adjust for one error, it causes something else to go
out of whack and so on.

Also, someone else mentioned the rounding of the bottom of the heel ..



Don't you have to ignore a lot of established Sasquatch foot morphology to let that one slide..


On the other hand, I don't see where we have to discard any established elk morphology in order for an elk to fit into the impression..

Ty-
I agree with your observation and nearly included it as another point above but figured the counter argument is simply that the leg could have been more flattened at some point. There are number of ways of picking apart the positioning theory/theories but I can hear the "sasquatch sits in mysterious ways" counters so try to avoid them for the most part.

Mike- I think it's actually fairly easy to reconcile how an elk could have stood up. 1) It first rolled all the way over onto it's other side (which there is some good evidence of in my opinion) or 2) it rolled a bit onto it's feet in the more obvious manner and a couple of the resultant tracks aren't as clear as we'd like. I wonder if one of the deer tracks isn't wrongly interpreted as it seems a lot bigger than the others, and one of the other likely track areas appears to have been very muddy and perhaps couldn't hold a track? Neither seems to be much of stretch in my mind.

Paul- I think the jutting heel is even MORE difficult to reconcile with the impression.

-A

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/context_1.asp
From what i have read on this report to me it seems that everyone seems to be wrong on how the animal was positioned and the events that took place before the forming of this cast.When you read the events that took place before they had this casting you can then see that the animal was on its side reaching for the fruit according to what they have said and how they depict the animal sitting in the article above.No one here is taking the fact that the group had heard vocals prior to the events and that the bait was taken but no sign was found within the pile itself.Now knowing this and knowing the behavior of this creature we have to try and come to a realization that if it was a elk that had left this cast that don't you think that the elk would have walked up on the bait pile rather then lay some distance from the pile.If bait was eaten from this pile and a elk did lay next to this pile then we have to believe that the elk had stretch out to the pile and ate.My question is how far was the pile of bait from the casting of the animal?if it is posible for a elk to stretch it's neck and eat some bait then yes it is posible that the form on the casting could have been done by a elk.But in my view i just do not believe a elk would lay down on the ground comfortably and chow on the bait.I believe the normal reaction of the elk would be to walk up on the pile and eat and leave.When i hunt I bait and i have yet to see a deer lay next to my bait and eat.I have sat in my ground blind a observed deer come up to the bait pile and eat standing but on the alert.So what differance is there that an elk would act the same as the deer none that i know of.Now I come to the question to a sas being the one that made the print.Here we have researchers in the field trying to attract a sas.Now the group has mentioned that they did hear vocals and that they drove to investigate where the vocals were coming from.In the process they layed out these bait piles including one that was in a puddle of water.The pile of bait that was layed in the puddle was the bait that they notice the print.In this atricle they show a painting on how they believe the animal to be positioned to form the print.Now if the creature was reaching out to the pile we come again to the question how far the creature was reaching for the bait? there is no mention that they measured the distance of the pile to the edge of the print.Now if it was a elk that made the print then this measurement would be evident to that fact that we do have the measurement of elk and the lengths of there body.I believe that if there is a measurement that was done on this bait pile to the edge of the print that we would be able to prove that the print was either done By a Sas or an elk.This is just my opionion.
Mark A

So I take it you think the ankle can not bend backwards or to the side as one would see if using the heel to push the body along the ground?

I can see that ..

But wouldn't that create an impression that would infer a body being
pushed over the ground ?

Where are the parts of the impression that show this ?

Rather than a well defined butt impression, we should see a large area of smearing
where the butt was pushed over the ground..

Okay - understand better what you mean now, and yes, that is a good observation - I need to get my calculator out

The only thing that springs to mind is this.... (assuming squatch for a minute), suppose the heel strikes the ground while the squatch is sitting down, but in getting up, the butt is moved back while the legs extend? wouldn't this have the effect of straightening the legs and potentially causing a tendon impression?

My biggest problem with this cast, and I've said it before, and will say it again and again, is that when I sit down in the mud, I can't get up without putting an open hand or closed fist to the ground to help me get up again, and nowhere do I or anyone else see a hand imprint.

As features of the Skookum cast strongly point to evidence of an elk,
the Seattle Museum of the Mysteries which displays a 40% scale print of the Skookum cast
will now also be stating and posting the cast may be from an elk.

Maybe this has been pointed out before but it just occurred to me....

Hair associated with the Skookum cast has been deemed by Henner to match his collection of presumed sasquatch hairs.




So, if the cast is actually an elk (as many of us suspect), doesn't that leave a HUGE glaring problem?! Either there a ton of sasquatches roaming around leaving hairs all over the place, or........

I personally discount anything Farenbach says about HIS hair analysis.
He has absolutely no qualifications or training in such analysis. Plus - the type of analysis he does is ripe with controversy in most court sytems.
Add to that the fact that his ringing endorsement of the Green/Coy fiasco with his hair analysis from a purported "farm squatch arm" and his on again -off again pronouncements regarding the collection of hairs he has - leads me to wonder why anybody else places any confidence in what he and his hair have to say.


edited for spellingz

I have to second that

I have no problems with what I have read of his analysis of these reported hairs, though he might not have all the qualifications that shouldn't stop him from making valid observations.

However, I was under the impression that the Green/Coy hairs were found merely to be the hairs of some kind of primate (probably with the last name of Green). Could you cite Farenbach's statement that they were sasquatch?

I read in one of Fahrenbach's reports that all of the "Sasquatch" hairs in his collection are also indistinguishable from human hair.

I'll third it.
His profession, as far as I can tell, has nothing at all to do with hair analysis.
From what I can tell...what he's done is look at a bunch of hair that comes from alleged sasquatch encounters, and was unable to Identify it. So...he looked for similarities, and decided that some group had some..and thus, the ones that were similar must therefore be sasquatch. And..other hair he looks at with those same physical features must therefore also be sasquatch.(this is a gross simplification, I realize..but I believe that it's essentially correct). In other words...a guy with no training whatsoever in the discipline, and who's methods of "analysis" are completely unproven and indeed, seemingly not much more then a well worded "I dunno, but I think they are sasquatch cause' I don't know what else they could be"...has ascended to the throne of squatchdom as our ranking "expert" in maybe the one area that has the greatest potential to deliver results one day.
No wonder the "field" so often meets with such derision among the REAL scientists.

As to the cast itself.
This looks JUST like an elk cast.
Elk are known from the area.
Elk love to dust and roll in exposed dirt or mud.
In some places, (like..um..where the cast was taken) there is exposed dirt and mud along side forest roads).
Elk will use these areas to dust and roll in the mud.
An elk that lays in mud....would leave an impression pretty much like what was cast.
The cast has elk hair associated with it.
The cast has elk tracks near and possibly IN it.
See where I'm going with this?
I think it's the "Jacobs bear" of animal beds..initially interesting for like 30 seconds, but obvious with another 30 seconds(figuratively) of analysis.
(although in the interest of fairness, it came first..so perhaps the Jacobs bear could be the "skookum cast of game camera photos).
Show me one with primate footprints or hand prints, and then we'll talk.