I've been asked to offer this information regarding the Skookum Cast. During the apparent silence regarding the cast considerable information has been gathered through slow, steady and careful analysis. As with most scientific enquiries, this one has taken time, and is not complete by any means. The information being offered here is however vastly more complete than any released publicly to date.
First off, I wish to state that no one can ever prove that a Sasquatch was responsible for the impression captured in the Skookum Cast. It is hoped that this thread may provide some of the information that has lead numerous extreamly well qualified individuals to believe that the impression may be that of an unrecognized species of animal.
So... to begin.
Much has been written, and is available about the particular circumstances that lead up to the discovery of the impression. That can be hashed over later. As for the site where all the events took place, here's a map.
Click to view attachment
Full Version: The Official Skookum Cast Analysis Information Thread
The site where the cast was made was a partially graveled, open turn around just off a Forest Service road. It had a small area, 20'x25' in the middle, characterized as a topographical depression lower than the surrounding area. This low area collected runoff water from the Forest Service road edge.
The runoff from surrounding terrain has carried clays down-slope resulting in a natural salt rich clay pan soil – attracting a wide variety of wildlife such as elk, blacktail deer and coyote.
It had rained heavily the day and night before the discovery of the mud imprint. A muddy water pool was present at 0300 but had dissipated to soft mud by 0900 on September 21, 2000.
Attached is a photo of the impression site with a 10 inch grid superimposed. The fruit that was left can clearly be seen. The impression itself is highlighted in purple. This photo also shows the areas of firm ground, and the wettest ground. Much has been made about entry and exit from the impression itself - and the proximity of relatively firm substrate. Hopefully this image will answer some questions.
One should note that in imagery from the cast site landmark features from the cast will appear in mirror image.
Click to view attachment
The runoff from surrounding terrain has carried clays down-slope resulting in a natural salt rich clay pan soil – attracting a wide variety of wildlife such as elk, blacktail deer and coyote.
It had rained heavily the day and night before the discovery of the mud imprint. A muddy water pool was present at 0300 but had dissipated to soft mud by 0900 on September 21, 2000.
Attached is a photo of the impression site with a 10 inch grid superimposed. The fruit that was left can clearly be seen. The impression itself is highlighted in purple. This photo also shows the areas of firm ground, and the wettest ground. Much has been made about entry and exit from the impression itself - and the proximity of relatively firm substrate. Hopefully this image will answer some questions.
One should note that in imagery from the cast site landmark features from the cast will appear in mirror image.
Click to view attachment
The mud imprint and resulting plaster cast have four (4) large putative heels and two (2) large putative Achilles’ tendons visible. The bottom of the “heels” exhibit orange peel texture that some have associated with dermal ridge friction skin patterns.
The four putative heel impressions do not exhibit morphologic characteristics that would indicate they were made by the forward parts of the fore or hind quarter legs of a deer or elk, despite obvious passing similarity. Tests with elk limbs have found significant differences in morphology between the two. It is of interest that the four putative heel impressions were made by two different limbs – as shown by mirror image hair patterns (one by one limb, three by another),
No hair pattern was present on the bottom of the heel-foot imprints which were impressed at a sharp angle. The heel impressions appear to have been made by the rear part of a foot. Impressions like these can easily be made with lower limbs that have greater movement than a deer or an elk would; they were lifted straight up out of the mud. The putative heels are not consistent with bent knees of deer or elk, nor the paws of a bear.
The physical size and limb proportions of the imprint are too small for elk (except for maybe a small cow or yearling) and too large for deer. Hair patterns however do not match elk. Nor do elk limb proportions match correctly with the impression on the cast. No fresh scat or urine deposits from any animals were present either (as is usually the case with elk lays).
The imprint is too large for either coyote or bear (except maybe a 6.5’ black or a small to medium sized grizzly, which would be a very rare occurrence). The animal that made the mud imprint is estimated to be larger in linear measurements than a six-foot human.
Here's a Black and White photo of the impression.
Click to view attachment
Here is the impression in the Skookum Cast. The different colors for the putative heel strikes help differentiate impression order.
Click to view attachment
The hair impressions found on 98% of the mud imprint (excluding the bottom of the heel-foot imprints) have patterns and lengths and flow direction characteristics not consistent with deer, elk, bear or coyote.
It should be noted that the fiberglass copies (male and female) of the Skookum Cast about 50% of the hair is not visible.
Click to view attachment
Here's the impression, with hairflow. It is interesting to note how the hairflow relates to the forms present in the impression.
Click to view attachment
By lightening the cast image it is easier to see detail in the hairflow.
Click to view attachment
The four putative heel impressions do not exhibit morphologic characteristics that would indicate they were made by the forward parts of the fore or hind quarter legs of a deer or elk, despite obvious passing similarity. Tests with elk limbs have found significant differences in morphology between the two. It is of interest that the four putative heel impressions were made by two different limbs – as shown by mirror image hair patterns (one by one limb, three by another),
No hair pattern was present on the bottom of the heel-foot imprints which were impressed at a sharp angle. The heel impressions appear to have been made by the rear part of a foot. Impressions like these can easily be made with lower limbs that have greater movement than a deer or an elk would; they were lifted straight up out of the mud. The putative heels are not consistent with bent knees of deer or elk, nor the paws of a bear.
The physical size and limb proportions of the imprint are too small for elk (except for maybe a small cow or yearling) and too large for deer. Hair patterns however do not match elk. Nor do elk limb proportions match correctly with the impression on the cast. No fresh scat or urine deposits from any animals were present either (as is usually the case with elk lays).
The imprint is too large for either coyote or bear (except maybe a 6.5’ black or a small to medium sized grizzly, which would be a very rare occurrence). The animal that made the mud imprint is estimated to be larger in linear measurements than a six-foot human.
Here's a Black and White photo of the impression.
Click to view attachment
Here is the impression in the Skookum Cast. The different colors for the putative heel strikes help differentiate impression order.
Click to view attachment
The hair impressions found on 98% of the mud imprint (excluding the bottom of the heel-foot imprints) have patterns and lengths and flow direction characteristics not consistent with deer, elk, bear or coyote.
It should be noted that the fiberglass copies (male and female) of the Skookum Cast about 50% of the hair is not visible.
Click to view attachment
Here's the impression, with hairflow. It is interesting to note how the hairflow relates to the forms present in the impression.
Click to view attachment
By lightening the cast image it is easier to see detail in the hairflow.
Click to view attachment
Much has been made about the arguement that the cast is nothing more than an elk lay. Here are all the elk tracks, and their direction of travel, in the cast.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
The next image shows the transits of the impression made by elk. The two primary transits can be seen entering and leaving the impression site in photos and video. They are in fact transits.
No where in the cast are any elk tracks in the proper positioning or orientation to be consistent with elk lays. Elks gather their legs under them when rising. They would be in, or immediately adjacent to the impression - side by side. Considerable documentation has been gathered to support this contention.
Click to view attachment
No where in the cast are any elk tracks in the proper positioning or orientation to be consistent with elk lays. Elks gather their legs under them when rising. They would be in, or immediately adjacent to the impression - side by side. Considerable documentation has been gathered to support this contention.
Click to view attachment
Here's an example of an elk lay in snow. Limbs are picked out for clarity. Credit to the photographer - used with permission.
There are a number of presentations of elk lays, but the thing they have in common is tracks from when they get up. Urine and drooppings are also very often deposited in the elk lay when the animal rises.
Click to view attachment
There are a number of presentations of elk lays, but the thing they have in common is tracks from when they get up. Urine and drooppings are also very often deposited in the elk lay when the animal rises.
Click to view attachment
Other animals besides elk walked in the impression. One blacktail deer and a coyote visited the impression site after it was made. Some have misidentified the much smaller (and much more shallowly impressed) blacktail deer tracks as that of elk. They are approximately 60% the size of elk tracks.
Here the blacktail deer tracks (and the transit they depict) can be seen.
It is interesting to note that three seperate animals slipped in the same very wet area of the cast. Clay is slippery when wet.
Click to view attachment
Coyote too came to the muddy depression. Light and agile - he didn't sink very deeply into the impression.
Click to view attachment
Here the blacktail deer tracks (and the transit they depict) can be seen.
It is interesting to note that three seperate animals slipped in the same very wet area of the cast. Clay is slippery when wet.
Click to view attachment
Coyote too came to the muddy depression. Light and agile - he didn't sink very deeply into the impression.
Click to view attachment
Let's talk about the hair impressed into the cast. Much of it is longer than that found on elk - even in winter. The longest is on the putative forearm impression. The average length appears to 2 to 3 inches. That is individual hairs have been followed for that distance. The hair appears quite coarse.
Again, much has been made about elk lays and the hairflow pattern on the Skookum Cast. There are many areas on the cast that have hairflow patterns that do not match the hairflow on the elk anatomy suggested as having made that part of the impression.
The next illustation shows a comparison of elk hairflow with the Skookum Cast hairflow. It is quite easily seen that they do not match in these critical areas.
Click to view attachment
Here is the elk photo with hairflow picked out in orange.
Click to view attachment
Again, much has been made about elk lays and the hairflow pattern on the Skookum Cast. There are many areas on the cast that have hairflow patterns that do not match the hairflow on the elk anatomy suggested as having made that part of the impression.
The next illustation shows a comparison of elk hairflow with the Skookum Cast hairflow. It is quite easily seen that they do not match in these critical areas.
Click to view attachment
Here is the elk photo with hairflow picked out in orange.
Click to view attachment
While the hairflow found on the Skookum Cast does not match that of elk or bear, there are primates it is very similar to.
Attached is an illustration of a very common human hairflow pattern. Truth be told I'm traumatized by the research into human hairflow. The hairflow on the buttock of gorilla is very similar to that of human. The closest match for the hairfow in the putative buttock and thigh areas is us - humans. Interesting anyway.
Here it is. Counciling is recommended after you do your own research along these lines.
Click to view attachment
Attached is an illustration of a very common human hairflow pattern. Truth be told I'm traumatized by the research into human hairflow. The hairflow on the buttock of gorilla is very similar to that of human. The closest match for the hairfow in the putative buttock and thigh areas is us - humans. Interesting anyway.
Here it is. Counciling is recommended after you do your own research along these lines.
Click to view attachment
So how could a sasquatch make an impression like that found on the Skookum Cast? Is it possible?
Explanations offered shortly after the discovery clearly were lacking something. The elk hoof drag near the fruit pile was initially though by people on the scene as a possible finger marks from an animal reaching towards the fruit. Many of you have seen illustrations done by Mr. Travers showing just such a scenario. Soon it was realized that the marks were hoof marks.
Yet the evidence in the impression does not support the idea of a side laying sasquatch reaching for fruit as depicted initially. The movements suggested initially required unlikely body positions not unlike a game of twister. And that scenario still didn't explain how ALL the areas of the cast were impressed.
When it became clear during further analysis that three of the putative heel strikes were made by one limb, and the fourth deeper one made by the other limb (the hairflow patterns are mirror images), a new scenario was needed to explain how the cast could have come into being.
So here's the latest thinking on how the impression was made. It takes into account all the impression areas, offers a plausable explaination for the impression order depicted in the cast, and allows for entry into and out of the site without leaving obvious footprints.
One should take a moment to look at the photo of the impression site and note what areas were very wet, and which areas were fairly dry.
Click to view attachment
As far as getting into the impression area, it could have just walked in and sat down, or something a bit more involved could have happened.
Once sitting, leaning backward supported by a hand on firm ground - the impression begins to take form. Those parts of the impression being newly impressed show up in these diagrams with a brighter color.
Click to view attachment
A shifting of weight and a lean into wet muddy clay.
Click to view attachment
Shifting of the right leg.
Click to view attachment
Small changes in position.
Click to view attachment
Repositioning of the right leg in an open splayed position. Repositioning of the forearm.
Click to view attachment
Repositioning of the left leg, knee sharply raised, planting of the left heel, depression of the ischial tuberosity.
Click to view attachment
Exit from the impression site.
Click to view attachment
That's all for now. Hopefully some good information to chew on.
By the way... could a mod please fix the spelling on thread title. It's quite late and I should be asleep. Thanks.
Explanations offered shortly after the discovery clearly were lacking something. The elk hoof drag near the fruit pile was initially though by people on the scene as a possible finger marks from an animal reaching towards the fruit. Many of you have seen illustrations done by Mr. Travers showing just such a scenario. Soon it was realized that the marks were hoof marks.
Yet the evidence in the impression does not support the idea of a side laying sasquatch reaching for fruit as depicted initially. The movements suggested initially required unlikely body positions not unlike a game of twister. And that scenario still didn't explain how ALL the areas of the cast were impressed.
When it became clear during further analysis that three of the putative heel strikes were made by one limb, and the fourth deeper one made by the other limb (the hairflow patterns are mirror images), a new scenario was needed to explain how the cast could have come into being.
So here's the latest thinking on how the impression was made. It takes into account all the impression areas, offers a plausable explaination for the impression order depicted in the cast, and allows for entry into and out of the site without leaving obvious footprints.
One should take a moment to look at the photo of the impression site and note what areas were very wet, and which areas were fairly dry.
Click to view attachment
As far as getting into the impression area, it could have just walked in and sat down, or something a bit more involved could have happened.
Once sitting, leaning backward supported by a hand on firm ground - the impression begins to take form. Those parts of the impression being newly impressed show up in these diagrams with a brighter color.
Click to view attachment
A shifting of weight and a lean into wet muddy clay.
Click to view attachment
Shifting of the right leg.
Click to view attachment
Small changes in position.
Click to view attachment
Repositioning of the right leg in an open splayed position. Repositioning of the forearm.
Click to view attachment
Repositioning of the left leg, knee sharply raised, planting of the left heel, depression of the ischial tuberosity.
Click to view attachment
Exit from the impression site.
Click to view attachment
That's all for now. Hopefully some good information to chew on.
By the way... could a mod please fix the spelling on thread title. It's quite late and I should be asleep. Thanks.
For easy reference, here is a list of all the threads dedicated to discussion of the Skookum Cast that have been started since November 2003.
Nice work, colobus. Thanks for all the effort!
Nice work, colobus. Thanks for all the effort!
Very nice to see how things have progressed/been looked at. As I believe that its in everyone that's been involved with the cast to "keep their cards close to their chest", I think its very cool that this "newer" info is posted here for us to see and inspect and form our own judgements upon which thread is presenting.
Great work. Thanks, colobus.
Is anyone writing a paper?
Is anyone writing a paper?
There is a sound made by a door softly closing that is much different from that of a door clanging shut. I think the elk is out of the pen...and the door just clanged shut!
Dan C
Dan C
Nice job with the interpretive panels, colobus.
But, the preponderance of data, coupled with your own images, scream "Wapiti!" I find it curious that despite alleging that the hair patterns are clearly not elk-like, and alleging that my interpretive hair patterns are incorrect, you've chose not to illustrate a known elk lay with hair flow highlighted. Is there any particular reason? Speaking for myself, I don't have one handy, but perhpas you do? If not, it's no big deals since I'm sure one can be found and studied shortly by someone who has a mind to.
All interpretations aside, the fact remains that there's absolutely nothing demontrably hominid or even primate-like about the cast. All indications are a large ungulate.
edited to note the snow trace on the left should be rotated 90 degrees to the right so that it's in the same position as the Skookum elk print.
But, the preponderance of data, coupled with your own images, scream "Wapiti!" I find it curious that despite alleging that the hair patterns are clearly not elk-like, and alleging that my interpretive hair patterns are incorrect, you've chose not to illustrate a known elk lay with hair flow highlighted. Is there any particular reason? Speaking for myself, I don't have one handy, but perhpas you do? If not, it's no big deals since I'm sure one can be found and studied shortly by someone who has a mind to.
All interpretations aside, the fact remains that there's absolutely nothing demontrably hominid or even primate-like about the cast. All indications are a large ungulate.
edited to note the snow trace on the left should be rotated 90 degrees to the right so that it's in the same position as the Skookum elk print.
QUOTE(colobus @ Jul 18 2006, 10:19 AM) 
The next image shows the transits of the impression made by elk. The two primary transits can be seen entering and leaving the impression site in photos and video. They are in fact transits.
No where in the cast are any elk tracks in the proper positioning or orientation to be consistent with elk lays. Elks gather their legs under them when rising. They would be in, or immediately adjacent to the impression - side by side. Considerable documentation has been gathered to support this contention.
Click to view attachment
No where in the cast are any elk tracks in the proper positioning or orientation to be consistent with elk lays. Elks gather their legs under them when rising. They would be in, or immediately adjacent to the impression - side by side. Considerable documentation has been gathered to support this contention.
Click to view attachment
First of all, a big thanks to Colobus, DDA and ALL the others involved for giving the rest of us something more to chew on. There is certainly a lot do digest here but it sure is nice to be able to do so (finally?) and more importantly to see the forum being properly used for info exchange, especially for those of us that can't currently (but intend to eventually) get our eyes on the actual cast (again).
While I continue to waste all of my "spare" time in the coming days pouring over all this, I'd could use some help on two quick questions:
1. Is the orang'ish 'V'-shaped area in the lower middle part of the cast in this elk track image being attributed to an elk? and if so, is it what it looks like- and elk wrist? and is it believed to have been made before or after the rest of the impression? and was there any hair pattern evident on it? (edited a second time to add that I answered this one myself- didn't look at the blow-up so I see now that this is a foot drag of some sort- right?
2. I can't believe I'm asking this, but where exactly is the suspected testicle impression or has that portion of the interpretation been tossed out? If the answer is 'between the cheeks' then I already see it and don't need any red circles... or anything more graphic.
3. (edited to add #3) To save me a few $ on counseling or looking at my a$$ in the mirror- do have the documented human hairflow pattern behind and below the knees?
Thanks to all,
Apeman
PS- This case, and this thread, and this discussion, and DY's...provocation? have been really excellent reminders to me of why I spend so much (arguably too much) time in this forum. Thanks everyone for the breath of fresh air, keeping the discussions mostly civil and productive, and not getting waaayyyyy of track like too many other threads. And for being patient with people like me thinking out loud a little too often.
How does the hair flow compare to Orangutan?
(I'm thinking of Giganto being thought to be an Orang relative.)
(I'm thinking of Giganto being thought to be an Orang relative.)
I agree completely with Apeman. the forums are the perfect place to air out ideas, share data and information and hack away at hypotheses and data. Disagreements amongst researchers are commonplace in museums, labs, and universities, but few people get to see how they work. The forums are a wonderful insight into this process.
Apeman refers to my ...provocation?...well...yes and no. Yes, in that I'm prodding colobus's interpretation in the same way he prodded my interpretations. He makes a few statements above about hair flow, similar to the issues he had with m ysketches, but doesn't back it up with an image of a reclining elk. A standing animal has different flow patterns than a reclining one. The knee of the elk responsible for the Skookum Cast was flexed upwards, causing a different flow pattern than the standing elk shown above. No, in that I'm not picking out red herrings or insignificant details just to be difficult. Honest!! :ohmy:
Apeman refers to my ...provocation?...well...yes and no. Yes, in that I'm prodding colobus's interpretation in the same way he prodded my interpretations. He makes a few statements above about hair flow, similar to the issues he had with m ysketches, but doesn't back it up with an image of a reclining elk. A standing animal has different flow patterns than a reclining one. The knee of the elk responsible for the Skookum Cast was flexed upwards, causing a different flow pattern than the standing elk shown above. No, in that I'm not picking out red herrings or insignificant details just to be difficult. Honest!! :ohmy:
QUOTE(colobus @ Jul 18 2006, 04:57 AM)
Here it is. Counciling is recommended after you do your own research along these lines.
I need a volunteer.
QUOTE(Desertyeti @ Jul 18 2006, 04:53 PM)
Apeman refers to my ...provocation?...well...yes and no.
Sorry, didn't mean anything by that, was actually referring to your whole interpretation in the other thread. Was scrambling for a noun reflecting something provocative, but I wasn't an English major - hence the question mark. But this works, no?:
Main Entry: prov·o·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "prä-v&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of provoking
2 : something that provokes, arouses, or stimulates
Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
...back to anatomy texts (which is not a euphemism)...
This is all very interesting, and I enjoy following a healthy debate on both sides of this issue. To be fair, since this particular thread has been pinned, shouldn't Desertyeti's thread be merged here, or pinned as well?
Great job colobus! Very informative.
OK, question... in the light orange outline of a putative forearm, is that a hand and thumb being depicted?
Also, I recall (perhaps incorrectly) from the Willow Creek Symposium DVDs that there may have been some potential toe impressions preserved in the cast...a footprint that was mostly obliterated by the impression. Is that right?
Has Matt Crowley's work had any impact on the interpretation of dermal ridges on the cast?
Will a paper be submitted to a peer-reviewed professional journal in the near future?
OK, that was four questions...
Thank you to Colobus for laying this out in one spot.
Also, I recall (perhaps incorrectly) from the Willow Creek Symposium DVDs that there may have been some potential toe impressions preserved in the cast...a footprint that was mostly obliterated by the impression. Is that right?
Has Matt Crowley's work had any impact on the interpretation of dermal ridges on the cast?
Will a paper be submitted to a peer-reviewed professional journal in the near future?
OK, that was four questions...
Thank you to Colobus for laying this out in one spot.
Very nice Colobus 
Thank you !!!
Thank you !!!
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Jul 18 2006, 10:30 AM)
To be fair, since this particular thread has been pinned, shouldn't Desertyeti's thread be merged here, or pinned as well?
Our thinking about this, right or wrong, is...
The Skookum Cast is a significant event in the recent history of bigfoot research and investigation. Colobus' thread (this one) is the "official" interpretation of the evidence collected and, because of that, worthy of pinned status. I see it as similar to Roger Patterson posting his official take on the film (can you imagine?). That would also be a fairly big deal and put that post somewhere above the fray. There have been several suggestions that the cast get it's own subforum. I have been resistant to that because I'm somehow genetically opposed to balkanizing the conversation here to such an extent that we're constantly telling people they posted in the wrong forum or moving threads, etc. If this gets its own subforum, then what else should? The St Croix video?*
After being told in advance that Colobus was preparing this post, I and the other admins discussed it and felt this was the best way to present it. It also seemed logical to create a thread that lists all the other Skookum topics, including DesertYeti's (of which, there are only 12 in four years- including this one - which is the main reason we didn't spawn a new subforum). That being said, we might still open a new subforum for the cast if it starts to generate a higher volume of threads.
No one should assume that because we pinned this we're somehow dissing other threads and opinions. That's not the intention. The intention, since this is the "official" position of those who discovered and have spent the most time analyzing the cast, is to give it some kind of elevate status so it's easy to find. Everyone of all positions are still free to post what they think here or in any other thread.
* I also acknowledge that we should occasionally review the subforums that already exist and remove those that no longer serve a purpose.
I feel the orange highlights are misleading. When I look at the the unaltered picture and then compare to the highlighted, I see orange area..that shouldn't be orange. I don't have photoshop with me at the moment in order to illustrate where exactly I'm talking about. One place the bugs me is the "v" shaped spot below the large section (someone else mentioned it). It has the appearance of a hand and thumb. When looking at the original, I just don't see where that shape is remotely similar to whats highlighted. I understand I am looking at a photograph, and I may be missing a lot of details.
Another point is the differences in hair flow. My untrained eyes see no difference. If anything your comparison convinces me more so that it is an elk lay, as the pattern appears to be exactly the same. Maybe some slight differences, that can be attributed to being under pressure and in the mud.
I am in no way an expert, so this is just a Joe on the street observance. Thanks so much for sharing this information. It is nice to be able to understand clearly how it is percieved to be a sasquatch. Fascinating stuff.
edited for typos...lots of typos
Another point is the differences in hair flow. My untrained eyes see no difference. If anything your comparison convinces me more so that it is an elk lay, as the pattern appears to be exactly the same. Maybe some slight differences, that can be attributed to being under pressure and in the mud.
I am in no way an expert, so this is just a Joe on the street observance. Thanks so much for sharing this information. It is nice to be able to understand clearly how it is percieved to be a sasquatch. Fascinating stuff.
edited for typos...lots of typos
QUOTE(bipto @ Jul 18 2006, 02:01 PM)
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Jul 18 2006, 10:30 AM)
To be fair, since this particular thread has been pinned, shouldn't Desertyeti's thread be merged here, or pinned as well?
Our thinking about this, right or wrong, is...
The Skookum Cast is a significant event in the recent history of bigfoot research and investigation. Colobus' thread (this one) is the "official" interpretation of the evidence collected and, because of that, worthy of pinned status. I see it as similar to Roger Patterson posting his official take on the film (can you imagine?). That would also be a fairly big deal and put that post somewhere above the fray. There have been several suggestions that the cast get it's own subforum. I have been resistant to that because I'm somehow genetically opposed to balkanizing the conversation here to such an extent that we're constantly telling people they posted in the wrong forum or moving threads, etc. If this gets its own subforum, then what else should? The St Croix video?*
After being told in advance that Colobus was preparing this post, I and the other admins discussed it and felt this was the best way to present it. It also seemed logical to create a thread that lists all the other Skookum topics, including DesertYeti's (of which, there are only 12 in four years- including this one - which is the main reason we didn't spawn a new subforum). That being said, we might still open a new subforum for the cast if it starts to generate a higher volume of threads.
No one should assume that because we pinned this we're somehow dissing other threads and opinions. That's not the intention. The intention, since this is the "official" position of those who discovered and have spent the most time analyzing the cast, is to give it some kind of elevate status so it's easy to find. Everyone of all positions are still free to post what they think here or in any other thread.
* I also acknowledge that we should occasionally review the subforums that already exist and remove those that no longer serve a purpose.
Well, that does make sense! :smile:
This is definitely one of the more fascinating topics I've ever came across in the world of bigfoot. Right up there with the P&G film. It gets my vote for having it's own subforum. :icon14:
Firstly, I must admit my ignorance was bliss in that I never knew how many Bigfooters™ thought so highly of this Skookum Cast™ 'thang'. My attention to it has been cursory at best as it just never seemed as interesting as it appararently is to some. Regardless...
I'm still a little vague on what exactly 'alerted' the proponents of the Skookum Cast™ to think it was of possible Bigfoot™ origin? Did anyone have a sighting/incident in that specific area in the time frame from no imprint to imprint (or even sometime before or after)?
From the pictures it appears the entire surrounding area was muddy/damp earth to one degree or another, yet not even a single Bigfoot™ footprint leading into or out of the area was found/cast/photographed? It appears there's deer and elk prints scattered all over though. Also, it seems the purported 'heel imprints' really just resemble such and upon a simple 'closer examination' of only the the pictures even that is suspect in that there's no apparent definitive transition/delineation as to where exactly the 'sole' of the heretofore typically wide heeled FLATFOOT would begin or be. IOW, if it's a heel, where's the foot?
As to the 'dermal ridges' and 'hair flow lines', there's way too much credit being given to the idea that the initial substrate (damp/muddy soil) and subsequent casting did not or would not 'change before/during and after that process. Were there soil samples taken and tested to determine the exact geological make-up of said soil? Certain types of soil (clay and clay mixtures specifically) actually move and breathe based solely on their moisture content. It does appear the soil took the the imprints and held them in memory easily, but if there was any sort of 'drying out' effect (thus shrinkage) coupled with the subsequent casting procedures with a wet medium, it's difficult if not impossible to believe the surface detail (i.e. hair flow patterns, dermal ridges et al) wouldn't have been affected/created/disheveled in one way or another - meaning it would change so as to not properly reflect the actual/real texture of the form that initially made them.
I am confused as to what exactly was/is the 'thinking' of the seeming suitable experts that have studied this case. I have to wonder if this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Meaning why exactly has the elk explanation been seemingly discounted? I don't think 'science proper' has ever been given the mandate to disprove everything as we think it to be. Sometimes, oftentimes, things really are as they appear. At this juncture I don't think I would care if Albert Einstein himself had risen from the grave and studied the imprint. Based on what I can see and what I've read, to make the claim that it is more likely a Bigfoot™ imprint than say an indigenous known mammal is truly ridiculous, if not 'wishful thinking sloppy science'. For better or worse, the proponents of the Skookum Cast™ have a larger burden to bear than Desertyeti. To some I think his may seem like too simple an explanation, but it certainly fits with the crime scene and he seemingly does have the degree of expertise (and quite possibly more than many of the of experts that have examined it so far) necessary to make a viable and reasonable determination. He's certainly not offered up anything that is a 'stretch', which cannot be said of the proponent opinion. IMHO of course. :wink:
"Harry"
I'm still a little vague on what exactly 'alerted' the proponents of the Skookum Cast™ to think it was of possible Bigfoot™ origin? Did anyone have a sighting/incident in that specific area in the time frame from no imprint to imprint (or even sometime before or after)?
From the pictures it appears the entire surrounding area was muddy/damp earth to one degree or another, yet not even a single Bigfoot™ footprint leading into or out of the area was found/cast/photographed? It appears there's deer and elk prints scattered all over though. Also, it seems the purported 'heel imprints' really just resemble such and upon a simple 'closer examination' of only the the pictures even that is suspect in that there's no apparent definitive transition/delineation as to where exactly the 'sole' of the heretofore typically wide heeled FLATFOOT would begin or be. IOW, if it's a heel, where's the foot?
As to the 'dermal ridges' and 'hair flow lines', there's way too much credit being given to the idea that the initial substrate (damp/muddy soil) and subsequent casting did not or would not 'change before/during and after that process. Were there soil samples taken and tested to determine the exact geological make-up of said soil? Certain types of soil (clay and clay mixtures specifically) actually move and breathe based solely on their moisture content. It does appear the soil took the the imprints and held them in memory easily, but if there was any sort of 'drying out' effect (thus shrinkage) coupled with the subsequent casting procedures with a wet medium, it's difficult if not impossible to believe the surface detail (i.e. hair flow patterns, dermal ridges et al) wouldn't have been affected/created/disheveled in one way or another - meaning it would change so as to not properly reflect the actual/real texture of the form that initially made them.
I am confused as to what exactly was/is the 'thinking' of the seeming suitable experts that have studied this case. I have to wonder if this is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Meaning why exactly has the elk explanation been seemingly discounted? I don't think 'science proper' has ever been given the mandate to disprove everything as we think it to be. Sometimes, oftentimes, things really are as they appear. At this juncture I don't think I would care if Albert Einstein himself had risen from the grave and studied the imprint. Based on what I can see and what I've read, to make the claim that it is more likely a Bigfoot™ imprint than say an indigenous known mammal is truly ridiculous, if not 'wishful thinking sloppy science'. For better or worse, the proponents of the Skookum Cast™ have a larger burden to bear than Desertyeti. To some I think his may seem like too simple an explanation, but it certainly fits with the crime scene and he seemingly does have the degree of expertise (and quite possibly more than many of the of experts that have examined it so far) necessary to make a viable and reasonable determination. He's certainly not offered up anything that is a 'stretch', which cannot be said of the proponent opinion. IMHO of course. :wink:
"Harry"
Were there soil samples taken and tested to determine the exact geological make-up of said soil?
I think Colubus covered the soil makeup in his first post. I don't think he mentioned samples being taken but if I remember correctly they were.
I think Colubus covered the soil makeup in his first post. I don't think he mentioned samples being taken but if I remember correctly they were.
I was very interested in DY's thread and am very impressed with Colobus's interpretation. I would very much like to see where the apple was relative to the cast.
QUOTE(Jim Zenor @ Jul 19 2006, 08:16 AM)
I would very much like to see where the apple was relative to the cast.
Jim- You can see this is the second post and second image from Colobus in this thread.
Yeah, how about them apples?
*ahem*
What became of the apples? Surely it occured to someone to bring them in for DNA or other testing. I'm assuming that there is some sample somewhere of elk slobber
and that traces from the apples were compared to same. And that it was carefully considered why elk or bigfoot would take the time to wallow in a mud pit for the presumed purpose of consuming said apples only to leave the overwhelming bulk thereof unconsumed. At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?
*ahem*
What became of the apples? Surely it occured to someone to bring them in for DNA or other testing. I'm assuming that there is some sample somewhere of elk slobber
and that traces from the apples were compared to same. And that it was carefully considered why elk or bigfoot would take the time to wallow in a mud pit for the presumed purpose of consuming said apples only to leave the overwhelming bulk thereof unconsumed. At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?
QUOTE(walkingcarpet @ Jul 19 2006, 04:55 AM)
Yeah, how about them apples?
*ahem*
What became of the apples? Surely it occured to someone to bring them in for DNA or other testing. I'm assuming that there is some sample somewhere of elk slobber and that traces from the apples were compared to same. And that it was carefully considered why elk or bigfoot would take the time to wallow in a mud pit for the presumed purpose of consuming said apples only to leave the overwhelming bulk thereof unconsumed. At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?
*ahem*
What became of the apples? Surely it occured to someone to bring them in for DNA or other testing. I'm assuming that there is some sample somewhere of elk slobber
and that traces from the apples were compared to same. And that it was carefully considered why elk or bigfoot would take the time to wallow in a mud pit for the presumed purpose of consuming said apples only to leave the overwhelming bulk thereof unconsumed. At the very least, the apples must have had teeth marks, right? And they were compared to elk--or other animal--teeth. Right?A peel was tested at a BC lab but "refused to give up products for amplification" (see LMS).
Field notes of the expedition here:
http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003...alExpedMain.htm
Question: Is it possible that a known animal such as an elk, sliding around in the mud, could perhaps create a false hairflow pattern as its hair is dragged through the mud?
QUOTE(Blight @ Jul 19 2006, 09:23 AM)
Question: Is it possible that a known animal such as an elk, sliding around in the mud, could perhaps create a false hairflow pattern as its hair is dragged through the mud?
I'm sure the professionals have already thought of that possibility, including anything else you might think of.
Besides, if you've not studied the original cast for a total of at least 48 hours with a magnifying glass, while wearing white socks with red rings around the top, then your not qualified to raise any issues or make any assertions.
QUOTE(Jim Zenor @ Jul 19 2006, 02:16 AM)
I would very much like to see where the apple was relative to the cast.
In the attached image, the yellow dots show the distance between what's supposed to be the right butt-cheek and the nearest/pile of apples. The pile of apples is at least 50" away, the single apple is closer at about 40" away.
The red dots show the distance between the forearm and the nearest/pile of apples. In this case the measurements are approximately 40" and 30" respectively.
Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?
RayG
QUOTE(RayG)
Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?
Thanks for the info Ray. I am kind of confused as to what is supportive evidence. For example, wasn’t there a call used along with a reply or has that been somewhat discredited with the coyote call. Also there were some "infrared" prints that I thought I remember near the imprint. I do agree with you that it would be useful to try to replicate experiment if possible.
QUOTE(RayG @ Jul 19 2006, 09:18 AM)
In the attached image, the yellow dots show the distance between what's supposed to be the right butt-cheek and the nearest/pile of apples. The pile of apples is at least 50" away, the single apple is closer at about 40" away.
I didn't even have to break out the caculator to know that that's, like...far.
The old addin' machine does however tell me this: That's about 42% of an eight foot tall bigfoot's height. Y'know, the bigfoot with the porportionately smaller lower body.
I'm not so good with math, but it seems to all add up to, as I said before, a nice face plant in the mud.
If someone has a cast of that, then we're in business.
QUOTE
Question: Is it possible that a known animal such as an elk, sliding around in the mud, could perhaps create a false hairflow pattern as its hair is dragged through the mud?
A very good question Blight!
Now that I've got my white socks with red rings firmly emplaced with man-garters, let me offer this:
Hair and fur will naturally cling to moist, small-grained matrices like clay, loamy soils, and mud. On a broad surface, like say the flank or butt on an elk, the surface mostly rolls from side to side as the animal lays down, shifts around a bit, then stands up. So the hair flow patters on those areas will probably not change too much since the hairs are only subjected to low-angle, "pressing" into the substrate.
On a narrow or deeper surface, things are more complicated. These structures would emplace deeper into the mud, and the hairs would first tend to flow opposited the direction of thrust. So, if a heel or wrist was shoved down into the mud, the hairs along the sides (but not anterior face of the surface) would tend to flow upwards (tips to the top) and away from the direction of force. As the structure was removed however, the primary (initial) flow direction would be obliterated as the secondary force causes the hairs to flow again, opposite. So, the upwards removal of the structure would cause the lateral hairs to be pulled out with a downward flow direction (tips to the bottom).
Your question is important since it's often forgotten that tracks and imprints record the very last movement of the animal's anatomy as it interacts with the ground superimposed upon all the previous movements. But the last movement can partially or completely wipe out the others too.
Thanks Colobus - great work! This is the first time I've gotten any sense of what proponents thought might be represented in the Skookum Cast.
This part is somewhat embarrassing, but I'm afraid I do need red circles to find the testicles, as Apeman alluded to earlier. I don't want to belabor this point or send the thread veering off into la-la land, but I have a hard time believing that the substrate was soft enough to take testicular impressions without the rest of the body sinking in much deeper.
Otherwise, I have difficulties with the following aspects:
*There are informed opinions on both sides claiming the impression either was, or was not, made by an elk. There are elk prints on the cast, and I assume elk are common in the area. If the choice is between "elk" and "an undescribed bipedal primate", then parsimony favors the former.
*It just doesn't add up. Why would a sasquatch lay in the mud near the apples rather than just walking over to them? To accept the cast as a genuine sasquatch impression requires a creative imagination to see in the cast an impression of the animal AND to envision the behavior that the animal must have exhibited in the course of making the cast. In contrast, we know that elk frequently bed down either to sleep or ruminate.
*Replication. I'm guessing that wildlife are attracted to this area for its mineral deposits. If that's the case, I would expect that sasquatch would be frequent visitors too. How many prints have come from this spot? How many times has the area been baited and searched for squatch sign? How many times HAD it been tried before obtaining this impression? What about other alleged hotspots of activity? Track plates, hair catchers, game cams - if a squatch at Skookum Meadows could be lured in to a pile of apples, then why wouldn't baited stations elsewhere be the way to go to obtain better evidence for these creatures?
THat's it, I guess. Like a lot of purported evidence, I can't debunk it, but aspects of the evidence and its collection make me too cautious to accept it. I'll wait for the peer-reviewed version before making up my mind.
BTW, any thoughts DY, Colobus, DDA (and anyone else preparing manuscripts on the Skookum Cast) on submitting opposing viewpoint papers to the same journal at the same time? Sometimes stuff like that gets editorial boards really interested . . .
Saskeptic
This part is somewhat embarrassing, but I'm afraid I do need red circles to find the testicles, as Apeman alluded to earlier. I don't want to belabor this point or send the thread veering off into la-la land, but I have a hard time believing that the substrate was soft enough to take testicular impressions without the rest of the body sinking in much deeper.
Otherwise, I have difficulties with the following aspects:
*There are informed opinions on both sides claiming the impression either was, or was not, made by an elk. There are elk prints on the cast, and I assume elk are common in the area. If the choice is between "elk" and "an undescribed bipedal primate", then parsimony favors the former.
*It just doesn't add up. Why would a sasquatch lay in the mud near the apples rather than just walking over to them? To accept the cast as a genuine sasquatch impression requires a creative imagination to see in the cast an impression of the animal AND to envision the behavior that the animal must have exhibited in the course of making the cast. In contrast, we know that elk frequently bed down either to sleep or ruminate.
*Replication. I'm guessing that wildlife are attracted to this area for its mineral deposits. If that's the case, I would expect that sasquatch would be frequent visitors too. How many prints have come from this spot? How many times has the area been baited and searched for squatch sign? How many times HAD it been tried before obtaining this impression? What about other alleged hotspots of activity? Track plates, hair catchers, game cams - if a squatch at Skookum Meadows could be lured in to a pile of apples, then why wouldn't baited stations elsewhere be the way to go to obtain better evidence for these creatures?
THat's it, I guess. Like a lot of purported evidence, I can't debunk it, but aspects of the evidence and its collection make me too cautious to accept it. I'll wait for the peer-reviewed version before making up my mind.
BTW, any thoughts DY, Colobus, DDA (and anyone else preparing manuscripts on the Skookum Cast) on submitting opposing viewpoint papers to the same journal at the same time? Sometimes stuff like that gets editorial boards really interested . . .
Saskeptic
I'm sure the editors of Ichnos would be most interested in reading the BF-origin story for the Skookum Cast as well as the elk-as-maker version (soon to be submitted formally). Clearly, colobus et al., have a very thorough study with plenty of figures and supporting data (and references I would pre-suppose), so it shouldn't be too hard to pound out a finished manuscript for review. The eidtorial and submission policies for Ichnos can be found here:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/authors/gichauth.asp
And here's the first bit for those not inclined to point their browser that way:
And here's the first bit for those not inclined to point their browser that way:
QUOTE
ICHNOS: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL TRACES
Aims and Scope
The foremost aim of Ichnos is to promote excellence in ichnologic research. Primary emphases center upon (1) the ethologic and ecologic significance of tracemaking organisms, (2) organism-substrate interrelationships, and (3) the role of biogenic structures and biogenic processes in environmental reconstruction, sediment dynamics, sequence or event stratigraphy, biogeochemistry, and sedimentary diagenesis. Each contribution rests upon a firm taxonomic foundation, although papers dealing solely with systematics and nomenclature may have less priority than those dealing with conceptual and interpretive aspects of ichnology. Contributions from biologist and geologists are equally welcome. The format of Ichnos is designed to accommodate several types of manuscripts, including Research Articles (comprehensive articles dealing with original, fundamental research in ichnology) and Short Communications (short, succinct papers treating certain aspects of the history of ichnology, book reviews, news and notes, or invited comments dealing with current or contentious issues. The large page size and two-column format lend flexibility to the design of tables and illustrations. Thorough but timely reviews and rapid publication of manuscripts are integral parts of the process.
Aims and Scope
The foremost aim of Ichnos is to promote excellence in ichnologic research. Primary emphases center upon (1) the ethologic and ecologic significance of tracemaking organisms, (2) organism-substrate interrelationships, and (3) the role of biogenic structures and biogenic processes in environmental reconstruction, sediment dynamics, sequence or event stratigraphy, biogeochemistry, and sedimentary diagenesis. Each contribution rests upon a firm taxonomic foundation, although papers dealing solely with systematics and nomenclature may have less priority than those dealing with conceptual and interpretive aspects of ichnology. Contributions from biologist and geologists are equally welcome. The format of Ichnos is designed to accommodate several types of manuscripts, including Research Articles (comprehensive articles dealing with original, fundamental research in ichnology) and Short Communications (short, succinct papers treating certain aspects of the history of ichnology, book reviews, news and notes, or invited comments dealing with current or contentious issues. The large page size and two-column format lend flexibility to the design of tables and illustrations. Thorough but timely reviews and rapid publication of manuscripts are integral parts of the process.
QUOTE(Jim Zenor @ Jul 19 2006, 10:44 PM)
Thanks for the info Ray. I am kind of confused as to what is supportive evidence. For example, wasn’t there a call used along with a reply or has that been somewhat discredited with the coyote call. Also there were some "infrared" prints that I thought I remember near the imprint. I do agree with you that it would be useful to try to replicate experiment if possible.
They were using the Tahoe Scream and got a return call. The Tahoe Scream has never been discredited...it was analyzed by Cornell University and it an't no coyote!
QUOTE(Jim Zenor @ Jul 20 2006, 01:44 AM)
QUOTE(RayG)
Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?
Thanks for the info Ray. I am kind of confused as to what is supportive evidence. For example, wasn’t there a call used along with a reply or has that been somewhat discredited with the coyote call. Also there were some "infrared" prints that I thought I remember near the imprint. I do agree with you that it would be useful to try to replicate experiment if possible.
By 'supportive evidence', I mean evidence in the immediate area that would support the hypothesis of an 8', heavy, unknown bipedal animal, leaving its butt-print in the mud. Supportive evidence would include things like:
- foot or hand prints at the cast site (several so-called heel strikes from this enormous creature, but no foot or hand prints)
- a sighting of this very large biped leaving its butt-print
- DNA obtained/identified from the partially eaten apple
QUOTE
Several possibilities were considered for what kind of animal could have made the kind of vocalizations that had been heard. After weighing all of the options, the general concensus was that it could only have been a sasquatch.
So, not based on a sighting of squatch making sounds, but solely on sounds that have never been confirmed to originate from a squatch, they concluded it could only have come from a squatch. :doh:
On another Skookum related point... in the image below we clearly see the outline of the elbow, forearm, and wrist. What is the length of this area, and how does that relate to the image I posted earlier showing the distances from the apples to the cast? Is the length of the lower arm sufficient to enable the squatch to grab an apple without reaching? And, if the squatch leaned over, using the elbow and forearm to support bodyweight, in order to reach the apples, why isn't the elbow/forearm impression significantly deeper in the mud? The closer to the apples, the softer the ground, correct?
:popcorn2:
RayG
Am I mistaken is saying that image of Meldrum in front of the cast does not constitute the latest interpretation of it? If that's the case, the shouldn't the BFRO pull it down or replace it with a new image?
QUOTE
On another Skookum related point... in the image below we clearly see the outline of the elbow, forearm, and wrist. What is the length of this area, and how does that relate to the image I posted earlier showing the distances from the apples to the cast?
The physical structure is 22.5"...depending on where one wishes to extend the yellow blob to.
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Jul 20 2006, 04:34 PM)
This part is somewhat embarrassing, but I'm afraid I do need red circles to find the testicles, as Apeman alluded to earlier.
I assume they're thinking here, but would be happy to be corrected:
Click to view attachment
That's a poorly preserved coyote print... :new_weirdsmiley: *ducking behind my desk*...
awwwwww nuts! :new_guitar:
awwwwww nuts! :new_guitar:
QUOTE(RayG @ Jul 19 2006, 08:18 AM)
.....Since there seems to be no supportive evidence that squatch was in the area, before concluding that squatch was sitting in the mud doing some sort of Yoga, wouldn't a more scientific approach be to replicate the experiment in bigfoot areas to see if you get similar results?
RayG
I think that is the question of the day. What, if any, is the supporting evidence that there was any kind of recent Bigfoot™ activity in the area? Meaning, did they walked upon the mud impression and out of the blue declare "It must be Bigfoot!" or were there other things of 'substantiative value' that lead them to believe it could be Bigfoot™? Just the call? There were no actual definitive footprints right? If there is in fact 'other information' not being brought forth, shame shame shame on all the proponents. Their credibility would deservedly suffer a major blow if that is true. IMHO.RayG
"Harry"
Desertyeti
“That's a poorly preserved coyote print...”
It seems that when you have an inadequate intelligent reply you either make a joke or offer up some explaination that further demonstrates your infatuation with self. How about some thoughtful discussion?
Whatever that part of the impression is, it is most certainly not from a coyote.
The "area's" extent and layout (so to speak) can be seen in the attached image. The "area" in question is not impressed as deeply as the surrounding impression. It is raised on the cast 3 to 5 mm about the surrounding area. The texture is quite different, the linear features smooth and rounded, considerably more robust than the diameter of the hair in the cast. I will try and get a good oblique image with the right lighting and a scale for Tube to sink his teeth into (figuratively of course).
Coyote prints marked.
The next image is of the same area, without the hair dilineation. I left the coyote tracks very slightly yellow, but you can see their structure clearly. The "area" in question is more easily seem. But a better image, or images will be arranged.
Anyway - not coyote.
As with all these images - click to enlarge.
Click to view attachment
“That's a poorly preserved coyote print...”
It seems that when you have an inadequate intelligent reply you either make a joke or offer up some explaination that further demonstrates your infatuation with self. How about some thoughtful discussion?
Whatever that part of the impression is, it is most certainly not from a coyote.
The "area's" extent and layout (so to speak) can be seen in the attached image. The "area" in question is not impressed as deeply as the surrounding impression. It is raised on the cast 3 to 5 mm about the surrounding area. The texture is quite different, the linear features smooth and rounded, considerably more robust than the diameter of the hair in the cast. I will try and get a good oblique image with the right lighting and a scale for Tube to sink his teeth into (figuratively of course).
Coyote prints marked.
The next image is of the same area, without the hair dilineation. I left the coyote tracks very slightly yellow, but you can see their structure clearly. The "area" in question is more easily seem. But a better image, or images will be arranged.
Anyway - not coyote.
As with all these images - click to enlarge.
Click to view attachment
Here is another picture of an actual elk lay. This one in clay loam.
What I wish to point out with this image is that all elk lays show the hoof tracks from where the animal stood up. They do not roll to their feet, they do not jump up anymore than a cow does.
Elk lays have parallel sets of hoof prints where the elk gets up. The hoofs point the same direction. They are roughly parallel.
Click to view attachment
Here is the impression and the hoof prints marked.
Click to view attachment
What I wish to point out with this image is that all elk lays show the hoof tracks from where the animal stood up. They do not roll to their feet, they do not jump up anymore than a cow does.
Elk lays have parallel sets of hoof prints where the elk gets up. The hoofs point the same direction. They are roughly parallel.
Click to view attachment
Here is the impression and the hoof prints marked.
Click to view attachment
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.