Here's a preliminary report (written in classic, dry scientific style...my apologies), with accompanying first-draft figures of my study of the Skookum Cast. I want to stress that I traced out only those features that exist on the cast, and made no interpretation of them until after I was done with the photowork. This is standard practice is straigraphic geology, where we work with photopanels of outcrops, trace surfaces and features, then double-check them on the actual outcrop or specimens. This serves as a safety-check and helps correct errors made from 2-d images. The interpretation shown here is preliminary, and a newer one exists, but I still need to double check a couple of minor features. I know plenty of people will disagree with this study, and that's fine. All I can say is, look at the specimen yourself if you get a chance, and remember Occam's Razor!

Introduction
The “Skookum Cast” as it has become widely known is a Hydrocal plaster specimen of a body imprint collected in September, 2000 by Rick Noll, members of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, and a television documentary crew. Although nothing has been formally published on the specimen, it has been touted as representing some of the best available evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Yet no formal study or detailed interpretation of the cast has been published since its discovery.
The purpose of this study was to examine the slab and couterslab of the Skookum Cast in order to: 1) document the occurrence of footprints, body prints, and hair flow patterns; 2) compare these traces to known animal sign in an effort to identify the makers; and 3) evaluate previous claims that the Skookum Cast represents clear evidence for the existence of a large, hairy, non-human, North American hominid.

Materials and Methods
The cast and counterslab of the “Skookum Cast” were examined in detail, and high-resolution photographs were shot for use in photo-interpretative work. Interpretations were digitally traced directly over the photos, and later compared to the actual specimens to verify the details. First-order surfaces are those that are readily apparent, 3-d shapes in the cast, exhibiting textures and morphologies characteristic of animal traces and were traced in a heavy line. Second-order surfaces include hair patters and surficial textures and were traced in a lighter-weight line. All surfaces were traced and compared to the specimen, and no attempt was made during the tracing to interpret structures, morphologies, or the originator of the trace. Only upon completion of the tracing exercise were the results compared to casts of tracks of known animals, and also published examples of animal tracks and sign (see Elbroch, 2003).

Results
In addition to the large body trace evident in the cast, four elk hoof prints, at least seven canid prints, and two boot prints are visible (Figs. 1, 2). Hair flow patterns are clearly preserved over much of the body trace, and match the pattern of flow in resting traces of large, hoofed mammals, including elk (see Figs. 1, 2). Although dermatoglyphic ridges have been informally reported on the “heel”, here interpreted as the wrist, none were evident to me during examination of the specimen. The elk hoof prints exhibit the characteristic rounded anterior margin and emarginated posterior margin of the species’ hoof morphology and are deeply impressed into the mud, ranging from 2-5 cm in depth.
The canid track was formed after the elk had moved away from the area as demonstrated by the superimposition of the canid’s prints over the main body imprint. The boot prints were left by the researchers at the site.

Discussion
The Skookum Cast appears to be a perfect example of forcing data to fit a pre-formed conclusion. In this case, the researchers were out to find evidence of Bigfoot, and this colored their interpretation of the evidence. Despite the complete lack of any Bigfoot prints on any part of the specimen, or in the immediate vicinity, the Skookum Cast continues to be lauded as some of the best evidence available for the existence of large, non-human North American hominids. Elk hoof prints found in direct association with the body imprint, combined with the very characteristic hair flow patterns readily apparent on the imprint immediately suggest that the specimen represents an elk lay (see Elbroch, 2003 for a discussion of the characteristics of ungulate lays).
The elk body print clearly evident in the Skookum Cast reveals the animal’s flank, butt, thigh, knee, shin, and metatarsals in precisely the areas where they would be expected (see Elbroch, 2003; Fig. 2). The curvature so readily apparent in the anterior impression of the elk’s thigh and knee were interpreted as the imprint of the gluteus maximus of a large hominid by at least some of the researchers who examined the cast (Murphy, 2004). The metatarsal imprints were likewise interpreted as the forearm of a hominid, and the imprints of the wrist and metacarpus became a “heel imprint.” The paired wrist and metacarpus imprints are characteristic of elk, deer, and other ungulate lay traces (see Elbroch, 2003). Significantly, the lack of hoof prints directly within the outline of the main body print is exactly what is seen in deer, elk, and other ungulate lays (see Elbroch, 2003). Hoof prints found outside the main body outline, but related to the forelegs reveal how the animal stood up.
Since none of the previous interpretations of the Skookum Cast have been formally published, it is impossible to evaluate all the claims surrounding the specimen. Nor is it possible to determine from the available information whether any of the researchers involved in its analysis have actually compared the specimen to known elk lays. There is little doubt that anyone actually making a comparison between the Skookum Cast and an elk lay would find the resemblance absolutely compelling. To this end, it is perhaps significant that a young couple examining the cast at a recent exhibition looked at it for roughly three seconds before the young lady summed up her interpretation in a mild Texas accent: “It looks just like a cow.”

Conclusions
The main body of the Skookum Cast represents a near-perfect body outline of an elk. The flanks, butt, thigh, knee, shin, metatarsals, metacarpals, wrist, and possible head imprints are all clearly visible and in exactly the position in which they’d be expected. The position of the hoof prints demonstrates how the animal raised itself up from its resting position. At some later time, a coyote walked through the site, and finally, the site was visited by the researchers and a cast made.

References Cited

Elbroch, M., 2003, Mammal Tracks and Sign, Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA, 779 p.

Murphy, C. L., 2004, Meet the Sasquatch, Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, WA, 239 p.

Wow...nice job Desertyeti.

Agreed... regardless of the reaction to it, that's a damn good report.

Thanks guys!

You were able to examined the cast itself?

Roger that one.
That's a photo I took of the main slab. The counterslab is next to it on the wall and I also have photos of that and examined it as well. There's nothing like actually looking at the specimen!

Great Work !!

Nicely done DY. Though I was pretty convinced by Meldrum's analysis of the suspected heel, I've been waiting for YEARS for someone to properly make the elk argument. You've almost done it.

Can you provide something from the Elbroch ref to help close the deal?

And can you also provide a ref to refute the common notion that elk always stand up (and place prints) where they lie. I'll have to watch a cow stand up more closely but always wondered about that claim.

Have you engaged any of the proponents with this yet?

Apeman

I suspect they'll be showing up shortly. :wink:

RayG

Heya Apeman, Yeah...I've got a couple of scans from Elbroch's book, but I'm going to retrace them to avoid any copyright infringement. They're greyscale sketches, so I won't be losing any detail.

As for the image of animals standing up, I'm working on it with some photos of cows and deer that I've been taking over the past few weeks. They're not elk, so to be super-duper sure, I'll have to get some of those, but I'll post some of the better ones I have of cows et al. None are especially good yet since they've been at a distance, but gimme a couple more days... :wink:

No, I've not engaged anyone with it. This is the first place I've "published" anything since I think everyone should have a chance to examine it before any misunderstandings, mis-statements, misinformation or other mis-es start sneaking out. I wouldn't mind maybe presenting the final, formal interpretation at the BF meeting this October maybe...so I'll have to ask the organizers about that possibility.

Nope

:laugh:

I'm no lawyer, but I'd say what you're doing falls into 'fair use'. Maybe not. In any event...

Let me make sure I have this straight. You did examine the cast first-hand, but are not engaged with Rick Noll or anyone else? How were you able to examine the cast? How long did you have with it?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand where you're coming from.

No sweat.
I examined it (or actually, probably a cast of it..and a very nice one!) at the San Antonio BF exhibit. It and the counterslab are mounted on the wall with some dingy lighting, so I used a flash to make the photos come out better. Problem is, it obliterated some of the detaile-enhancing shadows. Alas.

edited coz I cain't spel.

Gotcha. Forgot they had those on display in Texas.

Having recently been through an original cast vs. copy situation with the "Onion Mountain" or CA-19 cast, it should be noted that DesertYeti examined male and female first generation copies of the original cast.

Yeah, and it's possible there are differences, significant or otherwise, between original and replica. In paleontology, casts are used very often in comparisons and descriptions since they're quite reliable if reproduced well. It is always best to see the original however. In this instance though, the original and replica are so large, robust, and similar (at least in the aspects I've been able to compare based on photos of the original in Murphy's book), that I'm working uder the assumption that for a preliminary study, the cast is sufficient. Obviously, it would be great if the original was similarly interpreted and eventually published.

edited to note: as I stressed above, this is a first draft effort, and any and all suggestions, comments, criticism, etc., are most appreciated and welcome. As I finish up work on the final interpretive panel, I'll be re-examining the slab and counterslab, and eventually...if possible, it would be terrific to see the original. This is just the starting point.

I agree with the scans DY...no need to retrace them as long as you are properly citing who drew them and the source.

I wasn't sure after reading your report what caused the "achilles heel"? And elk knee? Is there a published example of what that would look like?

edited due to creative spelling.

I'd like to know more about the criteria used to rule out an elk. From what I can tell, it was the lack of elk prints in the center of the cast and something about the hairflow (I could be wrong on both counts).

So, I am guessing ungulates do rise to all fours without gathering their legs under them, at least occassionally?

Yeah, it seems the "Achille's heel" is actually...according to my interpetation...the combination of the anterior adge of the metacarpus folded against the more muscular, flexible, and wider forearm. The actual "heel" is the wrist of the foreleg. The apparent tendon is the anterior margin of the metacarpus, and the evident widening proximal to the heel is a result of the foreleg being folded tightly against the metacarpus.

edited to add: on this photo you can see how the hindlegs are folded alongside the body..exactly what is seen in the Skookum cast...in my opinion... :wink:

Any possibility something like this happened?



Is it possible for this critter to get to its feet without leaving footprints next to its kneeprints?

Nice photo DY. Any explanation for the supposed testicle prints?

RayG

Elk can have b*lls too...no?
As to the footprints next to knee prints...in the deer lay sign in Elbroch's book (which I'll post tomorrow since I don't have it at work, and my files are on a computer at home, there are no hoof prints within the main portion of the body imprint. It looks like the animal rolls slightly after digging in its forefeet, so that it's rear hooves actually contact the ground to the side of the body imprint. On the Skookum Cast cast that I saw, there were hoof print looking-marks astride the hindleg imprints. I haven't included them on the roug hsketch since I need to re-examine them and make sure of their identification. Also, please note, I need to include and re-examine a coupl eof the coyote prints too...like I said...it's preliminary.

But...yes, Elbroch images tomorrow morning first thing!

Also wanted to add that Rick Knoll's helping a LOT with pounding this study into shape and I want to thank him publicly (even if he doesn't agree with the final interpretations).

Very interesting analysis done, thanks for sharing it.
Looking at your cast pictures and body shape drawings you did side by side with those done by BFRO I am seeing quite clearly the outline of an ELK not a Bigfoot. And having set up camp not 500 yards from the road the Skookum cast was made at I can tell you the area is frequented by elk and coyotes. Does it prove that Bigfoot making the cast theory is wrong? No, But it does in my opinion gives the Elk theory the heavier evidence.
Having spotted possible Bigfoot tracks in that area, (just impressions in the hard earth) I do ask my self when I come across them, am I seeing the outline of a foot because I want to see something, or am I really seeing toes, a heel, the ball? It’s a hard call to make. I am still waiting to find a good solid print off the beaten track so it would be unlikely to be made my hoaxers.

Here's the Bigfoot interpretation Seadog's referring to compared to mine:

Quoted for awesomeness. :icon14:

Yeah, Rick's a pretty decent guy...I'm not sure how interactive I'd be if some yahoo started second guessing an interpretation of mine... :new_evil2: so nobody better!!!!! :wink:

psst....that's Noll not Knoll

DOH!! :doh:
Apologies to Rick!

Hey, btw DY, did you notice any other good work at the Museum??? :wink:

Indeed, but I didn't want to embarass you!
Very nice video presentation! The pictograph material is very interesting and you presented it quite well! Unfortunately, I had to pretty much run after looking at the casts since my car was overheating just before I got to the museum. I didn't want to stay longer than I had to since I wanted to get to a mechanic a.s.a.p. Long story short...it's a transaxle and I was left with a rental car to get me home to Houston. Problem is the rental had problems too...hmmmmmm...the mighty Skookum's revenge!?

That does sound like Skookum Revenge...did you wake up shorter or with less hair too?

How'd you know!?!?
Here's me with the car rental guy (he's the taller one).

More solid photographic evidence to show just how small Desertyeti is:

I also like to climb around on highway guard rails...uh-oh...I think I just said that out loud...

A cast made from this part of an elk is available for side by side comparison at the exhibit. The Skookum "heel" is much more robust.

Not sure what you mean by "all the claims," but Rick rather thoroughly (I thought) addressed the elk impression claim in his presentation at the 2003 Willow Creek International Bigfoot Symposium. I realize this does not constitute a formal publication, but at least you can see supportive images and hear his explanations on the symposium DVD set.

Yep, you're correct Peregrine, but since none of the often-quoted interpretations, allegations, and lamentations about the cast are in a widely available format (e.g., a journal article), I opted not to address them (Rick's included). On these forums and others there are many different discussions of testicles, knees, butts, arms, wrists, dermals, etc. I'm not interested in addressing each and every one of the various interpretations, only in presenting my own. Notice I didn't even do a side-by-side with the "official" BFRO model until someone else brought it up. This is not a study designed to refute any and all assertions, merely to address what it is that likely made the impression that was cast.

Rick's comments on the DVD are something I don't have access to at the moment. But, since my interpretation of the cast relies on the cast replica itself, my own study of it, my experience with ichnofossils, and the comparison to known animal traces, I'm pretty satisfied that it's an elk. I don't agree that the wrist is significantly more robust (and I'll get some measurements to sure up that case). So, as I said in the intro, this is my interpretation, and I'm sure there'll be disagreement, but I ask that you look at the images and give them a fair chance:

Your interpretation is that it's an elk. You're not the first person to say that; there were those saying the same thing from the beginning. This contention was directly addressed by Rick in 2003, so I find it odd that you didn't bother to review and address his arguments. But you say you are now working with Rick, so that's good.

Since you weren't impressed with the side by side elk/"heel" comparisons, perhaps you could provide a photo to "shore up" your position (interpretation, allegation) that the Skookum "heel" is not significantly more robust to give forum members a chance to see the two for themselves. Wish I had one to show, but I don't.

Interesting work, at any rate.

True all that you said. But as far as I know, I'm the first to actually trace out all (or most) of the available information, including the coyote tracks, bootprints, and hair flow. I could be wrong, but if it exists, I haven't seen it.

As for the elk wrists...here's a photo from the exhibit. I haven't gotten around to casting any elk myself yet. From left to right it's elk, Skookum, human. Notice that minus the flair around the base of the Skookum cast, it's morphologically identical to an elk, and not at all like the human.

Forgot to mention also that the elk was cast in an apparently stationary, fine-grained medium. The Skookum cast was in the wild, in an uncontained medium, and records an animal probably moving around a bit more than the stationary cast. As we all know, moving around in a natural substrate leads to an apparently larger, or more robust imprint. It's my opinion as an ichnologist (not an icky-ologist) that the elk cast on the left could very easily produce the Skookum cast in the center with slight movement in an unconfined substrate.

Bovine buttprints are cool and all, but DYeti ain't engaged?!!!
I'd hit it and I'm hetero.





:new_thumbsdownsmileyanim: .....yeah, I know.

Wow, very nice. Looks like the next step is to do some serious elk lay studying..lol. It would be great if someone found some footage of an elk rising up from a lay...as thats the obvious next step to support your view. Very convincing. Bigfoot about to take another blow? Once again, good job.

I've never really held an opinion regarding the Skookum cast. Till now.

:appl: DY, that was a very well written article. And I completely agree that the Skookum cast may very well be an elk laying down on the ground.

Well done. While not a hard core "skeptic" I'm definately a fan of skepticism and critical thinking. Unless someone can put forth a reasonable explaination as to why this isn't an elk or other large ungulate there's no reason to call it anything but.

"as I know, I'm the first to actually trace out all (or most) of the available information"

Far from the first, ... and far from complete.

It's nice that someone who's looked at a copy of the cast, taken a few photos, and looked at a few reference books has cleared up all the confusion of the academics, wildlife biologists, elk ranchers, zoo keepers, and so on, who have forced the data in this matter.

I'm sure you noted where the blacktail deer walked through the impresssion and where the bird landed as well.

Well, I just spent nearly an hour googling elk videos and have drawn the following conclusions:

1. Elk are loud. If I was camping in the woods and heard something like that, I'd have visions of sasquatch dancing in my head, no doubt.

2. There are a great many people who enjoy shooting elk and videotaping said shooting. That's fine by me, but I hope they at least eat the elk afterwards.

3. There are only so many viewings of a video of an elk peeing on it's own head that one can be reasonably expected to stomach. My limit appears to be two.

4. People seem to enjoy making video tapes of elk lying down, but apparently nobody cares what happens when the elk stand back up. Throw us a bone, people!

I'll search further tomorrow, if I can take it...



Might it (Skookum) just have been a bigger elk?

Here's a couple of the Elbroch figures. The scanned photo came out crap for some reason having to do with translation from Mac to PC, and my computer won't post it, but the traced outline helps explain it a bit. Below are the Skookum interpretation (as I noted from the beginning and Colobus reminds us, not yet complete), a deer trace in snow with main areas shaded for ease of comparison, and a generalized deer-elk-moose lay trace. Finally, here's a second draft Skookum interpretive panel (yes Colobus...this one too is incomplete!). :wink: There's nothing on this sketch that is not readily apparent from photos and the cast specimen. Incidentally, the figures from Elbroch's book are on pages 388-290.

I don't have any photos handy of elk or deer lays, so for anyone who's about to hoot and holler about that, just remember, this is why we publish in widely available venues...so others can cite our work without having to re-do everything. Elbroch has done just this with his field guide. Colobus and others who assert that all this has already been done obviously have access to materials that I haven't run across in my efforts to track down relevant interpretations of the Skookum Cast.
Maybe they could post their references to help clarrify?

I'd especially appreciate the input from the academics (being as I am one, I'd love to hear their opinions), elk ranchers, zoo keepers, and wildlife biologists that Colobus highlights. So far, I only know of Krantz, Fish, Meldrum, and Bindernagel...none of which is an ichnologist and none has published in Ichnos or a similar trace fossil-oriented journal. But I am very interested in seeing the results of their formal studies.

If the BF hypothesis is correct, we must accept:
1) elk are known in the area.
2) apples were used as bait and elk eat apples.
3) elk left hoof prints in relationship to the cast where one would expect hoofprints from a resting elk.
4) the cast outline itself resembles a resting elk very strongly.
5) the hairflow pattern evident on the cast resembles a resting ungulate.
6) but a Bigfoot leaving no footprints or other evidence of its presence left the elk-like impression.

At what point does a hypothesis become special pleading?

First you stated:


Then you said:


Would it be fair to suppose that your examination was far less comprehensive than that of the trackers, biologists, anthropologists, et al., who studied the cast?


The latter assertion strikes me as borderline “special pleading.”

Anatomy and primate experts such as Krantz, Meldrum, Swindler, and Sarmiento came to a different opinion.

At this point it seems to me that it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that elk movements could produce a series of such magnified “heel” impressions while the rest of the body does not shift (if I am understanding your interpretation correctly) and how the animal in standing fails to leave multiple deep hoof prints from the rear legs in a soft medium.

That's cool. But taking all the data from the cast and photos into account, I disagree. To me, there's plenty of data to indicate that we're dealing with an elk trace. If anyone else wants to begin a thorough study of elk traces to reveal the gross errors in my interpretation, I salute you. But in true scientific form, I'll stick with my story and await new studies that swiftly and mercilessly disprove my interpretations.

While I examined the cast for long enought to readily identify the major landmarks and features, I have no idea how long the "trackers, biologists, anthropologists, et al." examined it. I'm sure their Ph.D.s are better than mine, but since my training is in sediments and biological traces therein, I'm reasonably confident in my abilities (even though I don't expect anyone else to be). :new_whistle: So if we're going to start the appeals to authority, well...not much more I can say about it.

As to the multiple, deep hoof prints you want to see...have a look at the deer beds above, and notice that the Skookum Cast doesn't actually extend past the derrier much at all. They're simply not preserved...like the BF prints! :new_lmaosmiley:

I think it's fair to say, "you were looking for a sasquatch and that's what you found," assuming, of course, that they were looking only for a sasquatch and ignored other options. From what I know of the matter, which fits into what I know of Rick Noll*, there was a concerted effort to validate the conclusions that it was not an elk that made the impression. As much as I admire the effort DY is putting into this and based on the large number of opinions to the contrary, I don't think I'm ready to call the Skookum cast an elk butt without a lot more information and a point by point comparison of the conflicting theories.

That probably cannot happen in this format.

DY, in your opinion, is there any possibility that the impression could, in fact, have been made by something other than an elk? I would ask the opposing side the same but opposite question: Is there any possibility that this was caused by an animal other than bigfoot?



* Obligatory accusations of hero worship are assumed.