If you look back to DDA's post where he circled the two paw prints you will see that there are front paw prints in the picture.

here are a couple more. coyote and a bear track.....

Great photo with your hand, the coyote print, and the bear print.

Did you get measurements of the bear prints? Did you get any hair samples?

From the front paw print in the photo with your hand, I'd say it was a black bear that would square about 5'. I'd like to know what the rear print length was.

Where is the hard hitting rebuttal to Long's sorry assed story ? ( Roger Knight's excellent Amazon.com review, notwithstanding.. )

I've been working on an expanded version, which includes some new research findings. (Subscribe to Bigfoot Times to get an early peak at one of them--in the Sept. issue. This is the finding that bipto will enjoy, because it not only counts against BH, but against many hoax scenarios in general.) The Amazon version was eight pages (single-spaced, with narrow margins.) My personal version was 12 pages. (I had to cut it down to fit under Amazon's size limit, which is about 11,000 bytes.)

I figured I'd add ten pages to it and fill it out with some additional material. But then I encountered the phenomenon called (in the software biz) "constant time to completion." I got ten pages done, and found that in the course of it I'd had ideas for another ten pages. Etc. I'm now up to 120 pages (10% of them still in the rough-draft stage), or 60,000 words. (Also 20 illustrations, many of them maps. Most of them go in a chapter titled: "He Walked A Crooked Mile: Robert's Random Route to the Filmsite.") And that's just for Part 1, which deals only with BH. Part 2 will deal with Long, Morris, Anderson, and a few other odds & ends. I'll get to that next year. Then I'll rest.

Why not just self publish a book and sell it online or at conferences?

Damn, that' some good mud to make casts of all those different tracks. I'd of been in hog heaven.

Roger, I wish that you could publish your manuscript. ...

There are "some possible sasquatch tracks" and we aren't even talking about that?

Roger, I wish that you could publish your manuscript. ... If it is like any of your postings it will be interesting and informative.

Tsiako - can I ask if you know how deep these impressions were? If you could gestimate that would be ok for my purposes. Just curious as to how deep they are.

There's the point I tried to make. LOL.

Most were between 1.5" and 2" inches.

I'd like to take a moment to be Mr. Obvious here and say that using something with universally understood dimensions for scale in a picture can be most helpful. Heck, a tape measure works wonders, too. It can eliminate some of the questions. :wink:

Still, it is how we document our findings that will make or break what could be potential evidence. There really, really needs to be some sort of guide for this sort of thing. And a starter kit. Maybe training courses...

Now all I need to do is win the lottery and get it going! :laugh:

Well the possible sasquatch tracks as I descibed in an earlier post were not in a good medium. They were impressions at best. Note I'm not saying they are sasquatch tracks. Just that they could be. The only reason I say they could be is that from what I could tell they came out the forest and went back into the forest. The place they came out of is far from a trail or easy access. The tracks were in a general foot shape but only about 13" long. Well withing human range. But the step length is what interested me the most. It ranged from around 36" inches to 48" inches. I didn't post them because there just wasn't enough evdence.

Here are a couple of the tracks

I'd like to take a moment to be Mr. Obvious here and say that using something with universally understood dimensions for scale in a picture can be most helpful. Heck, a tape measure works wonders, too. It can eliminate some of the questions. :wink:

Still, it is how we document our findings that will make or break what could be potential evidence. There really, really needs to be some sort of guide for this sort of thing. And a starter kit. Maybe training courses...

Now all I need to do is win the lottery and get it going! :laugh:

Tsiatko,

I don't remember if you mentioned this already, but how many possible "BF tracks" did you find in total?

Sorry if you mentioned this already, but this thread is so long, I doubt I'd be able to find it if you did!

Kerry (DTK)

You are speaking the truth P.L. and very much helping to show what this hole exercise was about. It is difficult to make a judgment from pictures alone. Even with the data to back up the photos it is sometimes impossible. People want clean clear answers. In reality most things aren't that simple.

The pictures I've posted didn't show anything for scale other than a couple that had a hand in them. Some of the pictures were chosen to make people think and ask questions. I am guilty of doing this to see what others would look for. Ask questions about and what concusions they would come up with. I did this, not to try and make fools of anyone, but to learn. We all tend to slip into our own little world and miss things. See things from our own perspective. I am also guilty of not using a scale in every photo. To be honest my reason forn not putting a scale in every phot is a poor one. I knew that it was a bear. Nothing to prove that we have bear here. The tracks that I felt could be squatch were so poor that they were nothing more than an impression. I was guilty of poor research. Now that is not to say that I didn't measure the tracks. I just was guilty of poor visual recording of the tracks. Because I knew they were bear. Because the possible squatch tracks were so poor. For this I am guilty. I should use a scale for every photo regarless of what it is.

Tape measures are great for measuring. Much of the time thay are a pain for photoghraphing a track. The light will reflect and you can't read the tabe. I have a fixed ruler that I blacked out every other inch on for using as scale. It works well for rough measurement shots. Anything of a known size will work however.

Self Edit.....
Nevermind... I need to read ALL 46 pages before I ask this.... the answer may be there.....

I was just going to say that, wouldn't there be a hand pring in the mud, or at least the side of the hand print, as indicated in the colored pics on the first page?

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.

The next day (2005) we found 16 inch tracks where the animal had stood, eating our bait.

There may be a partial hand print at the end of the forearm (or elk's hind leg, if you prefer):

Click to view attachment

You sent a sample of WHAT to WHOM?

Independent lab. Are you suggesting MM would steal your s***?

Isn't the lab in British Columbia? What would "BF politics" in the US have to do with them?

It's almost impossible to find a body cell in feces, but there should be plenty of bacterial DNA. Dr. Fahrenbach has said the samples have to be practically steaming to be of use.

Did you ask Dr. Newton why he won't return the whole sample?

I think he can be trusted. Please let us know what the tests show.