Well I wish DY would at least get to examine the cast. We could find out from him one way or the other if his hypothesis fit, after seeing the cast in person.

But what if it didn't? What if he himself could rule out elk as well?

Either way, I respect DY's opinion as well as DDA's, and I wish he would examine it.

1000 posts! :appl:

:bf: :bf: :drunkard: :lock: :dance: :bf: :bf:

congratulations

:nicethread:

Yup, one looooong thread we got goin on here.

Who is the expert that posts how many times members have posted in threads?? Do it for this one!

Finally I'm a friggin 'expert'. This is really sorta 'top secret information' but for this thread we can make an exception. :wink: And everyone...shhhhhh.

Click to view attachment

and...

Click to view attachment

and finally...don't pay any attention to these fewest post 'losers'. This is just 'way too important s**t' to sit back and observe. :laugh:

Click to view attachment

Rick, all I was asking for was some clarification. How could I water this offer down? I didn't put any words in your mouth or take anything out of context. Those were your words, and I simply quoted them.

I don't see how I'm at fault here for simply asking for some clarification, or how my asking for that clarification equals to "protection, backpedalling and misdirection".

Sorry for asking. Please, continue with your thread.

I made the first page!!

Thanks Harry.

Now somebody please go over to LAL's house and stuff her ass in the closet. :laugh:

Excuse me?

You haven't seen my closet, have you? Believe me, there's no room.

Sorry.

Please post an alternative suitable spot for somebody to stuff you in. :new_lmaosmiley:









(And it can't be a bar, the Bahamas, a Lamborghini, etc.)

Hm. I may have to check the guidelines on this one.

So, 172 (+2) posts and I still can't get the purported elk out of the purported heel strikes and scraping without making a really big mess. I may have posted the most, but colobus and DDA said more. :wink:

Just adding a couple of cents, and hopefully catapulting myself to page one.

I agree with the sentiment that it would be ludicrous for DY to go and be videotaped examining the original cast, no matter how noble DDA's intent.

Also, did not DY explain that his analysis concluded "elk" based on gross morphology evident in the cast he examined, and that he didn't need to see the fine details allegedly apparent in the original to back up his conclusion?

If I see a turkey vulture flying a quarter mile away, I can be absolutely 100% positive of my ID without being able to tell you what color the bird's iris is. And it there is no iris color on earth that would invalidate my identification.

And finally, anyone who thinks DY did such a lousy job with his analysis is more than welcomed to publish in the same journal an essay pointing out his many errors.

~Saskeptic


PS: BTW, until Dr. Meldrum starts making some big sasquatch waves in Science or Nature, I would MUCH rather read Hunster's book!

IMO: Confidence presents itself for examination.



I would love to read a book by Hunster, especially if it was about his hunting adventures and included plenty of his pictures. I love the ones he posted of Alaska. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:
I guess I do not understand....I'm under the impression that a skeptic of sasquatch is doubtful of it's existence and refutes the possible evidence of the creature. If that is the case then I believe you should jump at the chance to read Meldrum's book because it will give you the opportunity to bone up on one of the major proponents positions, thus giving you added strength in your position....sort of like looking at the enemies battle plans.

This thread's gotten off track a few times but it can be funny once in awhile....and informative too!

So what is taking up all that room in yer closet LAL?

Huh? Hunster's got a book? Where can I buy it? :popcorn2:

Well, first of all, neither Dr. Meldrum nor anyone who believes in the physical existence of sasquatch is an "enemy." Believers are just people with whom I'd like to agree on the question of bigfoot, but with whom I cannot agree because the available evidence does not meet my personal credibility threshold. Some believers, however, cross the line to "proponent". These are people trying to convince others that bigfoot exists. Some proponents are hoaxers, some just honestly have a story to tell, and some (under the guise of "science") claim to have conducted analyses that reveals irrefutable evidence for the existence of sasquatch. Any proponent who claims the latter should know darn well that the place to publish that evidence is in the peer-reviewed literature - not in one's personal book.

My clothes and my shoes. I don't have any skeletons.

I live in an antique log cabin that was built in a time when extra closets were taxed (or so I'm told). If you needed more than one closet, you had too many clothes. Therefore, only one bedroom closet and a broom closet were built in. The clothes closet is slightly larger than the broom closet. I'm thinking of stuffing my sweaters in with the DVDs. I keep my camping gear in my car, which I lovingly call my portable storage shed.

You get the idea. I think I'd have made a lousy pioneer.

First of all thanks for your reply and let me apologize for the bad analogy. I don't think of those with opposing views as enemies, it was just the handiest comparission that popped in my head. Secondly, I understand your opposition to the offer from DDA, but it is his cast and it is his conditions. It is what it is. I will say it does bother me that DY doesn't want to examine the origional(I know all the arguments, I read the thread). From what I read in his statement he is completly convinced it was an elk lay, which is cool, but IMO if he is that convinced then he should have no problem in an interview with someone of an opposing viewpoint and should be able to hold his own in explaining his methodolgy or for that fact show it on the origional cast....but wait, it's not going to happen. Probably a good thing also, because no matter how fairly it might have been done, there are those who would have cried foul and said the who thing was tainted by someone with their hand on the editors button.
As far as publishing in a peer -reviewed literature...easier said than done. I think that was even said about DY's publishing attempt....it may not happen and he is a proponent on the cast being an elk. It should be easier publishing than if it were about a bigfoot but from what I understand it is tough.
You may not find it suprising that I don't belive the imprint to be that of an elk....we'll elk is last on my list. I do not believe it to be a sasquatch either and even if it was there is no way to prove it. A wise man said in a galaxy far away:

"What if someone runs over a bigfoot or shoots one tommorrow ? What are they going to do pose it in the position described to see if it fits? If it doesn't fit will the explanation be that it isn't the right bigfoot ? The point is that even if bigfoot is proven as a real creature, the skookum cast will never be proven as being from a bigfoot no matter how much anyone attempts to do so."

I do find it interesting and it sure has caused a bunch of bantering if nothing else.

You only say that because you figure my book would be filled with entertaining BS, and Dr. Meldrum's book would be filled with that boring science stuff.

And you'd be right. You've probably read too much of that dry science stuff, anyway.




Heck, at least half of my outdoors trips are misadventures.

I only take pictures of some of those. I can only take so much teasing and ribbing from Mrs. Huntster and my friends...........



It's appropriately free, right here.

Over 5,000 posts of pure BS...........

I consider myself a "proponent". I don't hoax, or even conduct private research or investigation, but I do a lot of cheerleading.

I don't necessarily want to convince the masses that these creatures exist as I want to convince those in science that there is enough evidence for an investment into more study by the science industry.



The problem with peer-review is that I'm not a "peer". I don't qualify.

There are too few "peers" out there, and the ones that are (I think) get too little support.

Hunster... what IS that thing in the water?? Thought it was a pickup at first...

It's an Argo.

Argos are 6 to 8-wheel amphibious off-road vehicles.

As the photo shows, the amphibious part isn't foolproof.

Put a fool in it (like me), and it can be turned into a poor excuse for a submarine...............

That wouldn't be the Argo Bigfoot, would it?

All right, I'll put you in the "has a story to tell" category, even if you're telling other people's stories. That is, of course, unless Hunster is in a category all by himself, which very much could be the case - especially considering the Argo photo.

Hey Mike...just curious as to what you think it is if not elk or bigfoot?

Nope, but there is another similar ATV out there called a "Bigfoot", but I think they're out of business now.




Well, I did see some footprints that I think were sasquatch prints,.............

and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a few months ago..............



No doubt about that, and Thank the Heavens.............

Huntster, My 6 wheel drive is a "MAX" and as far as I know they're still being made in the USA. I Don't have enough nerve to put the drain plugs in and go in the water. It's a rugged machine but is labor intensive and I'm getting OLD!!!

I've seen Max's. Do they have a "Bigfoot" model that you know of?



My Argo is labor intensive, too. I work on it much more than I ride it, especially after pulling stunts like that pictured above.

But I was pretty proud of myself that weekend. That little aquatic fun resulted in me walking out wet (3 miles, in April, in sub-freezing temps), walking back in the next morning with the proper hoists, tools, and parts, hoisting it out of the water, draining fluids, getting it started and running again, and driving it out before nightfall the next day. All by myself.

It helps qualm Mrs. Huntster's concerns. She has come to realize that even though I'm very creative in how to get myself into trouble, she also admits I'm pretty good at crawling back out of the woods in one piece.

I'm not sure exactly, but I don't think it is an elk based on some things that we don't see. This was from the expedition report:

"Old tracks in mud include elk, deer, bear, coyote. The most obvious fresh tracks were coyote and undetermined deep marks. "(sorry for lack of quote box but I'm on proxy server again)

DDA verified that statement to me. The lack of fresh elk tracks around the bait doesn't jive with me. The theory about the imprint snuffing out the tracks doesn't jive either.

This is from the report, also verified by DDA:

"The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple apparently spewed about over the imprint."

"A second pile of chewed up apple is found on a different part of the mud pool"

The apple bits could have dropped from a laying Elk as it chewed upon the bait but two questions form from this:

1: How did the chewed apple and seed get all over the imprint?

2: How did the apple bits get into two seperate places in the mud pool with out leaving tracks?

The answer to the first one could be the bits spilled as the laying animal stood up, but there is the track question then. Looking up info, an average bull can weigh in at 800-1100lbs and a female can weigh 550-600lbs, calves of course less, the point being and animal weighing what they do will leave tracks in mud. What if the mud was frozen? Still would leave tracks.

The second question? I don't know. As far as a bigfoot the same questions apply, but in the scheme of things you could say it is just as plausible as anything else. For all we know it could have been Louie Anderson stopping by for a late night feed. Now that would be a sight.

And he could of obliterated a lot of tracks. And made a mess with the apples.

And I could say something about the testicular imprints, but then I'd be doing Mr. Pinkham's job here. :laugh:

Argo Bigfoot

I'll be darned! The Bigfoot is an Argo!

Mine is an 8-wheeler. The Response model.

Hunster,

How loud is your Argo? Is it stealthy in any way or would it startle a chipmunk from three miles away? Just curious....

Kerry (DTK)

It's way too loud. No stealth about it. Most newer 4 wheelers are more quiet, especially Hondas.

My Argo has a Briggs & Stratton V-Twin, 35 c.i. It's pretty reliable, has electric start with pull-cord backup (critical, in my opinion), but quiet it is not.

This was once such a good thread. Is there any way I can take back my star rating?

Why does this ALWAYS happen in this forum? :icon_bang: (Please don't answer that here).


Apeman

Lol Apeman... don't worry, this is just the rest period before round 2. (or is it round 32? I've lost track.)

I once solved the problem of an inundated board by filtering everyone with a cute screen name. My filter list reached capacity, but I was able to get through the posts in time for dinner.

I found out I don't have to read every post. What an enlightening experience that was.

So, while we're waiting for the combatants to return :popcorn2: , I'd like to ask which arguments stand out for us. Which fall flat? Does anyone know what's wrong with Halfpenny?

We have this from John Green's opinion piece at BFRO..

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/green_statement.asp


This gives us an 8 foot plus, subject..

I notice in this picture, the indicated elbow to wrist feature in the cast, looks no longer than
Dr . Meldrum's ..



This really doesn't seem to correlate to an 8 foot tall subject ..

SG, I think you just started round 3. :laugh: And with a worthy point.

LOL... forced perspective. The cast is behind Dr. Meldrum and is at an angle to the vertical wall. Didn't you use this very argument against measuring the Patterson film subject's IM index?

LOL , No kidding...

His left arm is at an angle.. ( elbow closer to the camera ) Foreshortening would mean his forearm

appears even shorter than it actually is ..


What is the actual measurement of the indicated elbow to wrist area ?

But that isn't the way the cast is being interpreted now, correct?
At the beginning of this thread Owen presented a different pose.



[edit] It looks like an arm is in the new interpretation, is that in the same area as shown above?

Is this what you are asking Blackdog?...also the new interpretation seems to have an obvious hand embellished into the cast.

Click to view attachment

Apeman... APEMAN!!! Where the heck is he? Someone call Africa and tell Apeman the thread is starting again... HURRY!!!

Yes, what is the actual measurement?

RayG

Thanks Ty,
That's what I was wondering.

I'm still curious why it was thought to be a sasquatch in the first place. Hasn't the original interpretation been discounted...or has it? I'm just really confused on that issue. What made it a sasquatch in the first place and why, if that interpretation was wrong, is it still a sasquatch now?
That’s an old argument I know, but I don't know that I've ever received a logical answer other than "the research is still ongoing". But it is obvious that the proponents of the sasquatch theory still want to fit a BF into the print, there doesn't seem to be another alternative that I have heard from them although they profess to be open minded to other possibilities. What exactly are the other possibilities and why won’t they let us know so we can make up our own minds? If it definitely isn’t an elk and it may or may not be a sasquatch what else could it be? Is there any reason not to answer that question? Rush to judgment? That’s already been done at the original discovery.

It would seem DDA has the last LOL after all .. At least based on the approximation I have come up with.

The ' forced perspective ' consideration, indeed had me jumping to an ill founded conclusion..

I apologize to DDA for insulting his obvious photographic expertise .. ( and thanks to him, I now have a very small amount )


I came up with this shot from LMS , and found some identifiable points to measure about 7.5 inches ..




Transfering those points to this image, and using the blue lines as a measuring stick.



It looks like the indicated elbow to wrist measurement is somewhere near 15 inches.

I'm about 5-11, and my elbow to wrist is about 11 inches. Making the alleged forearm,
indeed ~ 40% longer than that of a 6 foot human..

It was quite presumptious of me to assume Dr. Meldrum had been careless in the measurements
that lead to his conclusions, or that he presented them in a careless manner..
With that in mind, I apologize..

Doing this work before I tried to score a skeptical coup would have served me well ..

Indeed it has served me well in any event...

Is that a new interpretation to show where the hand obviously would have been, or were there signs of finger impressions discovered at a later time, thus leading to the new interpretation?

Embellished? How can you say that unless you've seen the cast up-close and taken measurements and pictures yourself? Do you have any close-ups of that particular area you could present that would clearly rule out the possibility of that being some kind of hand-like imprint? If you do, please show...

:popcorn2: