Wow. Not much in replies here. 30 people downloaded but didn't see fit to comment... yet.

The original Gorilla.wmv file worked but the latest gorilla.mov just gave an error that the proper compression couldn't be found, yet my Quicktime player is up to date.

After I posted the original file my quicktime player came up, on checking the post, with a big watermarked question mark. That is why I changed it. I checked with Owen and he said he could view it. Did you download it to your hard drive before trying to play it?

Yeah I did, the windows media file shows a zoom in on the gorilla and then that is it, at 94 kb, but the Quicktime file just gives the error then it will play but it's just blank.

Should be 403 sized... delete that file and start over or try and save with a new name maybe? The 94 file was earlier I think.

Any and all impressions, from plant to bipedal "human" to giant reptile, may apply (the older, the better).

Sasquatch prints may not.

Why? Because any idiot knows that sasquatches don't exist...............

Yes, ' doing something else ' could be part of ' choosing not to respond '...



I'm sure we would have all been lost without you pointing that out..

Dr. Martin Lockley authors in Ichnos. He has named many Dinosaur spoor from tracks and trackways. He has never named a Dinosaur from them though. Grover Krantz tried that and was shot down.

Current understanding as to what is a fossilized track and what isn't is in the hands of these types of scientists. We have bones of Dinosaurs but we do not have a full body of one. The inferred morphology of say a foot from bones is debatable as is the naming of new species... but Dinosaurs bring in money. There is actually big money behind this science. There are college degrees, museums, movies and more surrounding these animals long dead. Was it their size that captured the public's fascination or just good marketing? Who knows... but throw enough money at this topic and I think you will get the same treatment Dinosaurs got.

Anybody know how many times T-Rex was redesigned from poor BONE reconstruction by science?

Actually, being busy is more like "unable to respond."

I thought I'd point that out. Some folks have difficulty with the language.




Not all of us. Just those who have difficulty with the language.

Hmm. The second time in three days I've misinterpreted your otherwise innocent remark as an attempt to make a dig. I must be a cynic. Sorry for the confusion.

I posted a short movie clip of an elk getting up from laying in mid. I have three such clips but they all show basically the same thing. The video tape actually has over two dozen elk getting up and down... bulls and cows... and calfs. After they left the area Dr. Bam Bam went out an photographed the impressions left behind.

It is not the best of pictures but heck it shows an impression of one of the forward joints and top side of a hoof.

The casts made of a dismembered elk leg that both Owen and I placed in playdoe was of course not naturally placed in the medium... we tried to straighten it out as best we could to simulate the impressions found on the Skookum cast. It is but another problem in confining an analysis to material collected by others. The above picture denotes a more natural or typical impression one would find.

Here is another impression of an elk joint. Note scale and the shortend appendage length to the joint. This was made in wet mud and shows detail of the hair... not changing in characteristics or attributes as it wraps around the impressions.

There certainly is a similarity in the shape of an elk lay and the skookum cast..

Click to view attachment

Did anyone cast the gorilla's impression? That is what we need to see.

Depends on how you look at it I guess.

Apparently it was a glitch in my own system, thanks DDA!

Understandable.. I do lean towards the sarcastic sometimes and tone and intent do not convey so well
in these forums..

I sometimes feel that I am at a disadvantage as a non believer, in that my sincere questions can be taken
as rhetorical barbs.

I never have a problem with trying to clarify, should anyone care to ask.

I can't see it yet.

Help Wolftrax

Actually it's not. Being busy with something else, means choosing to do something else.

Being ' unable ', means not having the ability or the means to do so...

Nothing to contribute but contention, Hunster ?

Is there a Quicktime coded I need to download?

I just d/loaded the latest version of quicktime and it worked for me tube.

I wish... Takes an act of god himself to interfere with zoo animals. Lots of extra work...

And no I don't think that is really what would convince people of anything to do with Bigfoot as being real.

You have a Bigfoot story... people want to talk with the eyewitness one on one.
You have interviewed a good eyewitness and now you want a track picture.
You have a track picture but you really want a cast of it as well.
You have a good story, track picture and cast but now you want a picture of the animal.
You have a good story, track pic and cast plus an image of bigfoot... but now you think it needs to be doing something extraordinary... something maybe a human can't do.
You have a good story, track pic, and cast and picture and something it is doing on film is extraordinary but now you want to see if all other animals, including humans, are capable of doing something like this even if illusional to some extent.

Bottom line is that no skeptic will believe any of it until they see a skeleton, carcass or one in a zoo... so all you researchers out there... you might as well give up the debate with these people unless your willing to go and put a bullet between one of these animals eyes. Don't want to do that? Cool! It doesn't negate what your doing out there except for in their eyes.

I don't know about that. I think a lot of skeptics would be happy with evidence presented a bit more scientifically. I think the reason the "science needs a body" statement gets tossed around is because many feel that no one is doing properly documented scientific research, and so the only way to prove this animal exists is with a body. The only outspoken people tend to be the amatuers, while the actual scientists are keeping their findings to themselves, for the most part. All of these professionals that examined the Skookum cast, and all we are left with is "so-and-so said this," but without any actual documenation to back it up, or to be reviewed by peers. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous to expect any rational person to accept the findings of these scientists when they aren't even allowed to check their work. Of course some call for a body. They aren't getting anything else of substance to sway them.

There was a time when the use of objectivity and skepticism was considered a healthy way to approach the subject. It almost seems blasphemous to do so now. Times are changing, I guess.

Nah...Any way I look at it I at least see a similarity. :wink:

As far as your skeptic rant...I disagree...A skeptic by definition is someone who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs or conclusions...Do you know of any Bigfoot evidence that is generally accepted as conclusive proof...I don't.

While I totally agree with your sentiment that a body is the only thing acceptable as proof to 'the rest of the world' for Bigfoot's™ existence, in the context of this particular debate, more than a few of the cast's 'detractors' are genuine Bigfoot Enthusiasts™ (B.E.) and not 'skeptics' per se - myself included. Doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't question/discuss its validity as there are some interesting and/or compelling aspects to it, pro and con. At this moment, the 'thing' legitimately begs as many questions as it answers. Regardless, the ultimate Bigfoot Truths™ we're all seeking will not hinge on the legitimacy or not of the Skookum Cast™...and as your post above indicates, I don't think you believe otherwise either. :wink:

"Harry"

You're talking about the Skookum cast, right? There was no bigfoot story. No eyewitness. No clear track picture. No track cast. No picture of the animal. No film either.



This one certainly won't believe the Skookum cast is a bigfoot butt-print unless something gets submitted to, and accepted by, a recognized scientific journal. We know anthropologist and leading primate expert Dr. Daris Swindler thinks the cast is that of an unknown humanoid primate, and anatomy professor Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum thinks the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence (for academics at least). Hopefully, between the two of them, something will get published in my lifetime. :wink:

RayG

Yep. I had to upload the latest version of Quicktime, not just update the version I had. But it worked, great video! Thanks, DDA!

So, it's one strike and you're out? That was 3 years ago. Anything wrong with trying again? I guess the BF motto should be "If at first you don't succeed, quit." Yeah, this thing'll get solved real quick. :new_tiredsmiley:

If I remember correctly I believe someone in the know said that attempts were still being made to get the research published. It can take years to have something published. However, a portion of Leroy Fish's manuscript was linked, and DDA and Colobus have been giving their own reasoning as to why they believe the impresion not to be an elk with detailed photos as well as video of known animals in comparison. Having gone to Pocatello, and seeing the cast, and various people freely speaking on their reasoning there and it being open to study (just as DesertYeti has done), I can say that nothing is being locked away or hidden.

So basically you've been getting all the things you asked for; it was documented, it was rejected from peer review but attempts were made, but still up for your review, the actual cast is there for you to review along with visual recordings of known animals, you are welcome to study it and come to your own conclusions, but you're still complaining on how unscientific these guys are or how unsatisfied you are.

I guess DDA was right.

Do you have another suspected Bigfoot impression/cast we could compare it to ?

Apples to apples and all that …

:doh: How about a real Sasquatch butt, just to see if there's a match.

The Skookum Cast is a one-of-a-kind, but it would be interesting to compare the heel impression to a heel portion of one of the larger footprint casts.

Yes that was done. It fit pretty nicely I might add. Explained a few things and tickled Grover. But what is the point? If it were up to me I wouldn't give skeptics any more then what they have right now. Think me terrible for that but ask yourself... why should I? and please be realistic about it... their combined voices would mean nothing as well - except when in the negative and preaching to the choir.

Owen or I could bring up a lot of things done and it would fall on mostly deaf ears here, as if we were actually wishing for something to actually come of it. My focus has moved on. If and when a real Bigfoot enters all this, the Skookum cast might be of value... and the skeptics... very little. Skeptisim is one of those things that can polarize one into rationalizing their interia. Contrary to popular belief though, interia doesn't stop time or aging... you know getting set in your ways, no longer pushing the envelope, taking risks, leaps of imagination, thinking outside the box, against conventional wisdom... Once these set in it will take much more energy to restart due to the time lag.

There is active research, proactive research and reactive research but I can't seem to put a good name on this skeptical dogma... septical research? Skip research? I don't know.

You got that right. Count me in. Add me to the list. etc. etc.

Claims that the Skookum cast is the butt-print of a squatch and not an elk-lay, yet...

No supportive evidence. :icon_bang:
No replication. :icon_bang:
No accepted submission to any scientific journal. :icon_bang:

Granted, the scientific folks involved might still be arranging their ducks in a row before any further attempts at publishing, but the lack of replication is a glaring weakness in their 'scientific' approach.

If folks want to claim it's a squatchbutt after satisfying the above shortcomings, I'm on board. Until then, I'll remain unsatisfied.

RayG

I do not consider myself a "peer," therefore my studying the cast would mean diddly. However, I guess if everyone is satisfied with the way things are, then I'll just keep my mouth shut. Maybe my standards are too high. With something as significant as the Skookum cast is said to be, I just hoped that more was being done than there appears to be. "It's sittin' over here, come on over and look at it" didn't seem very scientific to me, and my gut tells me that the efforts to approach mainstream science with documentation and research results for peer review haven't been as stringently pursued as we may believe. That's just my gut. I may be way off. All I hear is that "so-and-so" tried this and that, but I see nothing to back that up. I'm tired of trusting word of mouth. It's almost depressing seeing how easily so many people are just willing to accept what they are told, without wanting to see how those results were obtained.

I am not a scientist. I don't pretend to be. I am a skeptical hobbyist, who happens to be opinionated and vocal. I've never been one not to question. However, I guess that isn't how science works, so maybe I'll just butt-out of these types of conversations. I need to make a note for myself:

"Question nothing. So-and-so says it is what it is, so that's what it is."

Ok, I think I can remember that.

Carry on, folks! Sorry for the interuption! :smile:

Some excellent points in recent posts to this thread:

*publication is not a one-shot deal - when you get struck down somewhere, you try somewhere else.

*usually easier to get accepted for proceedings than actually published in the journal


For something that's really "out there" however (and I submit that butt/testicle/heel prints from undescribed animals qualify), you can sometimes be at a disadvantage submitting an abstract to a meeting proceedings. This is because the author is often limited to a strict word limit (like 250), and I bet it'd be really difficult to get the gist of the Skookum Cast story across in so little text.

IF there are folks here with access to the cast and IF those people are convinced that their analysis irrefutably points to evidence of the proverbial "large, bipedal, undescribed, North American primate", and IF those people are interested in advancing the science of research into sasquatch, then I can't urge those folks strongly enough to publish that information in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal of science. If rejected, then modify using comments obtained through the review process to revise the paper and try again elsewhere. You keep going until it gets accepted - that's how we disseminate information on all the other animals in this world.

If at some point an editor or reviewer convinces you that you really can't rule out elk or some other known animal, then you might make the decision to forego publishiing on the Skookum Cast and try to get some better data.

Wild, can you tell me where in here you asked a question?

I wonder if Henry Gee would be interested. His "hope for Yeti hunters" remark should have given us some hope, too.

1.5mm is .059". 3 human hand dermals could fit in 1.5mm but there is a difference in thickness between hands and feet and they swell when saturated with water, as in soaking in swamps or walking where there is quite a bit of moisture. The tops can also wear flat with abrasive use making them in fact appear thicker. What are the dimensions of other casts that have dermals? What was the moisture content of the enviornment?

I’m sure you meant inertia right?
I think your statement works both ways. The same thing happens to folks who believe too much.

I’m really curious as to when skeptic became a bad word. I won’t bother to post a dictionary definition because it would insult everyone’s intelligence but it certainly isn’t a bad word, many truths have been learned here and in history by people who choose to be skeptical.
I can be interested in this subject and hold to the idea that it is very possible that sasquatch do exist, so much so that I continue to research and monitor this and other boards in the hope that new information will come out, and still be skeptical of some of the evidence presented or some of the discussions here and elsewhere.

New information has come out recently;
We’ve recently learned that there is a new scenario describing how the impression seen in the Skookum Cast may have been formed by a sasquatch. I just think it’s unusual that this new theory hasn’t been shared until DY posted his study. I’m not saying the new theory was made up in dissension to DY’s post but that it was either held back intentionally or it was deemed that the average Bigfoot enthusiast didn’t need to know this information.

We’ve also learned that there is much more to the Memorial Day footage than we were led to believe. There were revelations made after the contents of Larry Lund’s presentation in Ohio this spring were discussed and again this past week when DTK announced he had an unedited version of the tape.

I understand that there isn’t always the opportunity or the time to share these types of things with those out of the loop but isn’t it just a bit unusual that within hours of new information presented by those out of the loop that this new information is presented by those in the loop.

Then the insults towards skeptics begin and the rhetoric about how skeptics are so stuck in their ways that they will never be convinced no matter how much evidence is presented. Well how about giving us a hand? Nothing would make me happier than learning that sasquatch actually exists, this has been virtually a lifelong interest for me and at times I question my reasoning ability and gullibility. It wouldn’t necessarily take a body for me, just substantiated evidence.

This business of “need to know” is frustrating. If there is new evidence why not reveal it before the major questioning of the old evidence begins? All the trouble seems to start when old evidence is questioned, only to find out after the fact that there is more to the story than we have been allowed to know. That hardly seems fair to criticize skepticism when all the cards aren’t on the table.

I’m sure if it were the other way around the true believers would feel the same frustration. Who knows, maybe it is?

Exactly what is it that you have given the skeptics ? What do we have right now ?

What could you possibly be holding back that we ( the skeptics ) are at a disadvantage without ?

If you are holding back evidence that supports your position, it would seem you are only hurting the people who are on your side .. ( assuming the adversarial stance you appear to be taking )

Is is just me, or do I see ridge texture in the depression made by what I believe is the forward joint? The ridges appear to be parallel to the short axis of the depression, similar to the orientation in two of the putative heel strikes in the Skookum cast

Very thoughtful. None of the “nah or naner naner” crap from so called PhDs. Why can't everyone be civilized like this post?

Science is incremental. The information being built up on the Skookum cast didn't happen over night or in response to anyone else’s counter views and a lot of it has been presented orally and visually in many different venues since 2000, just not all at once like this. Unfortunately this doesn't match up with the I WANT MY MTV now crowd demand.

I have often looked at this cast and the impression as a jigsaw puzzle put together by someone blind and with me trying to understand it without a picture of the finished piece. Others are frustrated because they don’t get to participate as much as they would like to. Quite understandable. People will just have to wait until it is done. Sorry.

As for others who can't wait and want to attack it prematurely... go right ahead... I wouldn't ass-u-me anything though.

Not one person has made a comment about the gorilla video I posted here. Does it not show a large primate sitting and eating apples? Is it not moving its body with its arms and heels? Is it not reaching out for food and consuming it in a relaxed sitting position? But before this was posted how many assumed that this could not happen or was unusual behavior? (And yes I know the thighs are way too short... but I never said the cast represented a gorilla... nor a human, yet it was mentioned that the upper arm of a human is too short to place the lower arm next to the thigh... not a very good point to try and make! LOL!)

No... now the stakes have been raised by the skeptical once again and all for just them. You know... all this work has and is being done by two people who have other jobs, family and obligations yet find the time to do what has been done so far on their own funds. <<Shakes head>> If my kids acted this way they would certainly be cut off from what they want so as to learn patient and manners. Bite the hand that feeds and you'll soon be eating your own.

This forum, to me, was to be used in exchanging ideas and theories with peers. To better the search. That doesn't seem to be happening too much. All I see is a battle of wits between opposing viewpoints and what is acceptable evidence. What is acceptable evidence isn't even clearly defined by a majority yet. A track could be anything... but given the creatures really do exist, future skeptical trackers would be using them to lead scientists out in the bush with.

Yes there are romantics on the opposite side but for the most part they have been weeded out. Real research is in-between the skeptic and romantic. It is a grey area… some don’t know how to maneuver in fog I guess.

Thanks for correcting me earlier. Yes I meant inertia. I don't understand how it works both ways though. You get things done by moving... even Einstein had to move. Bodies at rest tend to stay at rest unless set in motion. Bodies in motion tend to keep in motion unless acted upon to stop. Isn't that what the skeptical crowd in here wants everyone to do? Stop?!

I don't need a teacher in here. I only came in here to share. I could have done that in many other ways and maybe I should of - thinking about it now. I wanted peers, partners in this... and look what I got. Look what everyone got. Hawkers at the door screaming step right up and get a punch for absolutely nothing then off with ya... got plenty more to punch this very fine day.

On another note... I think I have lost any faith I ever had with the PhD institutions. I think they are handing them out way to early in one's life. No one should ever underestimate life’s hard lessons… tempering the academic. You'll know what I meant by this if you are young now, down the road.


Oh… not that I am old! Of course.

Quote: DDA



Exactly, and I couldnt agree with you more.

Prematurely ? Attack ?

Do you consider DY's paper an attack on your conclusions ?

I can't get it to play. I tried downloading the latest Quicktime and got corrupted files. I'm :icon_bang: :icon_bang: :icon_bang: , right now, but I'm watching you on the WCS DVD even as I post. Fascinating. As I've mentioned, several thousand times, I used to live in Skamania County, so the history was of particular interest to me, but your interpretation of the various areas has me glued to the screen. On to the elk, now.........

Has your interpretation in any area changed substantially since you gave that presentation?

I think it is very interesting and does show how the Skookum Cast is hypothesized to have been made. It's very cool!



Amen.

Thanks, neener, neener and blatant abuse of smilies are a couple of my online pet peeves and it bothers me that both sides in these debates resort to them too often.


I understand that, but why do these things only come out after the fight starts?
I am NOT part of the “I WANT MY MTV now” crowd, I’m too close to 50 for comfort and am very patient, hell I’ve waited over 30 years for answers, I guess I can wait another 30 more.
I understand waiting to get ones ducks in a row before presentation but in the examples I gave it seems like they were pretty well in line well before they were presented here and it required some kind of provocation (that’s not a bad word either) to bring it out.


I just wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying; I wasn’t trying to correct you. :wink:
It seems to me that some people that are SO caught up in their beliefs that they don’t look at anything contrary to their beliefs, which works whether you are extreme in either viewpoint. This is true not only in the Bigfoot field but in political and religious beliefs. I’m not in any way implying that you look at the field this way but there are those here who do.

If you are looking at me as skeptical I definitely don’t want you to stop and neither do many of the others I know who have a skeptical leaning towards most evidence presented. I want the truth and that’s the only reason I get frustrated when there is new information withheld for any reason.
For one thing it makes me look foolish if I am arguing an outdated piece of data without the knowledge of anything new in the mix and then criticized for not trusting in some of the researchers involved. How the hell was I supposed to know it was flawed data I was arguing against? (This is a rhetorical statement and not a reference to any of the data presented in this thread.)



I believe there is a lot more support here on BFF for the evidence presented by you and other well known researchers than there is dissension. Maybe you are being a bit sensitive.I understand your frustrations but we can’t be concerned with confrontation if we are confidant in our position.


I understand that perfectly, it goes not only for PHD but also, or maybe even more so, for lower degrees. I worked my way into a position that would otherwise require a college degree in a very technical field. I always worked in that field and knew the real world aspects of it along with the technical end, but inevitably a new engineer with a wet diploma believed they knew more about off paper things than I did, they had to learn the hard way I guess.

I saw the gorilla video and agree it's cool. I didn't comment 'cause I don't see the relevance. Gorillas sit in a patch of food and munch the things around them all the time. I've seen still and moving images of this many times before.

In contrast, I've never read a bigfoot story that described the same kind of behavior. I'm sure somebody will post a link to one I've missed, but that's not really the point. Of course something like a sasquatch could sit in the mud and reach out for a pile of apples, I just don't understand why one would. I understand why gorillas do this - they'll frequentlly plop themselves down in a patch of food, eat for a while, and then rest there while their gut bacteria go to work on some fermentation of complex starches. I have no information to suggest that sasquatches forage in any similar way, so it sounds odd that one would sit in the mud next to a little pile of apples rather than just walk up to the apples.

It's not an open and shut "this is why I don't believe it" thing, it's just one piece that erodes my ability to accept it. As always, happy to be proven wrong. . .



As for publications, "too busy with family obligations" is a perfectly legitimate excuse to have not tried to publish more. That's why I don't publish as much as I should either. Why not just say so at the get go?


Many folks here decry the lack of involvement by the scientific community in conducting sasquatch research. They want money and attention allocated to studying these creatures in the wild for the primary purpose of advancing their conservation. That's great, but the main problem with scientific study is that it's guided by the principles of science. Science includes principles like parsimony and replication and peer-reviewed publication.