I can empathize with your seeming frustration on all this, but to any number of members here on this board yours is an unfair assessment of the situation. At least on this topic. I don't think any of it has genuinely turned 'personal' and if you feel it has, that's unfortunate. Just like the PGF or the Bossburg casts or the Chehalis Scream, everything is up for scrutiny. It's still a mythical (as in unknown) monster and I know of nothing to date that changes that. I think it can be said that the people here with the open minds are willing to believe it's ALL true. If it is. They can also believe only some of it is. Maybe very little of it. Maybe almost nothing at all. But they can't justly be labeled non-participants simply because their level of credulousness or belief or interest may be less than another's. Skeptical Greg's point of view is not on a lower tier than John Green's because he has little, if any, belief. Especially when he asks legitimate questions or points to legitimate contradictions.

There's an anomolous casting done of a suspicious imprint that is speculated to be of Bigfoot™ origin. You may think it is, others of note may think it is...so that's that? We can only wish life was that easy. I have clients that swear they're gonna pay me tomorrow. They SWEAR. Can I go to the bank with a big fat deposit slip before they do? "I swear he's gonna pay me tomorrow Ms Teller." She's not being mean by telling me to come back when he does. And I'm positive she will gladly take it then when I actually have it.

On this subject, I don't think anyone is being mistreated here. Questioned, grilled, interrogated maybe. And rightfully so. The only other alternative is for us to throw our hands up and declare out of simple faith that it's all true. Every bit of it. Case closed! Nah....

"Harry"

Nope... I was talking of the Patterson film.

:icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy:

History in the area too.............

I am not taking things personally but I think the expectations from some here are quite demanding and it doesn't sit well. I am a technician... not a scientist. I love to figure out how to do something but giving you all the science behind it is not in me. Besides most of you would just say it is only his word against everyone else, like I were the company store or something. But BTW one of my job titles is a Pattern Maker. It is kind of a lost art and has to do specifically with the same things DY does academically. I can respect what he does but how he goes about it is, to use his own qoute... mind boggling.

Credit should be given for what has been done... otherwise no one would know this much right now. If skeptical people think they are helping by pushing and categorically saying we are wrong... their wrong. It makes people not share what they know or have. And if the skeptical people are really interested in the subject then why don't they attend conferences where they can talk one on one? Money? Some probably do attend but I have been approached by only two in person. Todd Neiss and Daniel Perez. With this much activity on this one subject alone you would think the skeptics would attend in force. I don't believe it is an interest in the subject as much as an interest to argue with people they feel are inferior in some way.

I have given my last talk - for awhile at least. I will be very busy in the coming months and right now am preparing to travel overseas to investigate more Bigfoot related material. Where I am going I don't believe there will be any internet service but if Owen feels inclined to answer here anymore he is just as qualified.

The gorilla video now... yes there were people that said it is highly unlikely for a primate to do such a thing. Think they also said gorillas were afraid of water too. I abhore the tactic of asking leading questions to replenish argumentive dialog. I think it is overly used here by a few and it is quite distasteful. Reminds me of asking a couple of lawyers once how they can live with themseleves then I realized what it was... only one small part of their brain was being used, the rest was disconnected from fairness, empathy and a human spirit. I am only speaking about two lawyers that I know and did me a disservice. I am sure there are lots of other lawyers who are not like this.

I have shown Elk getting up. Gorillas in the same feeding position. Owen has shown morphology different than from an ungulate, at least one without a broke back. We have had third parties with no implied or real vested interest in the cast identify features and surface textures. We have had expert hunters and trackers examine it. The cast has been on display. Duplicates of the original have been made, including a female form. The circumstances under which the cast was made was documented in video and word. The story has been published numerous times. There was multiple witnesses. Yet... because there are elk tracks at the site (which I was asked not to cast or to remove from the casting, which of course I didn't) its an elk. If we would have just found footprints looking like Bigfoot tracks we would have met with the same incredulity... yet, no member on that expedition saw an elk at anytime during the entire trip.

Believe what you want. Like I have said... I have to move on now. There is an animal out there and I want to see it at least once. Debating here or somewhere else about it means nothing. The cast is history, that is all. And if I am fortunate enough to ever get to see one... I may just finish the book I started to write about the journey... Damn the evidence.

That is from a poor video, extrapolated larger. Could be some artifacts but most likely skin folds around the joints. I would not call them parallel to the short axis... more like radial to the spiral. Look at your own inside elbow. But hey... ask DY he is the elk expert now.

I'm sure i'm one of those mean old skeptics referred to above, 'cause I know i'm guilty of asking questions of those who make extraordinary claims. (What a vile fiend am I!) All I really want to know is "why do you think this?" and "how have you ruled out other more plausible explanations?"

I ask these questions because I want to believe claims like the Skookum Cast, PGF, dermal ridges. Help me to draw the same conclusions you do about these things. Remember though, that I might not agree. I also might decide I don't have enough expertise to make up my mind. That's how I feel about the Skookum Cast and PGF, for example. In cases like that, I've just decided to wait to see what attempts are made at publishing these analyses, and I'll forego a final decision until I read what has passed peer review.

If the story doesn't make it through peer review, then i have a few choices:

*the proponents don't have the technical expertise necessary to write up the analyses for journal publication - this would really be a sad outcome if it was the only thing keeping solid data out of print

*the paper is publishable, but editors won't go near due to their alleged bigfoot bias - if this is the case, let us see the rejection letters so that outside pressure can be exerted on these editors

*the manuscript is successfully submitted but can't pass peer-review - good story, but not defensible. Story may be true but we can't tell.

*proponents never submit either because they're too worried about editor bias or they know themselves that they don't have a defensible story.

Nope. I try to offer clarification.



There are a few things more important than participating in this forum. Having to do them and being away is not necessarily a choice. It might be a necessity.



If you must be doing other things, and cannot particpate in the forum simultaneously, you are "unable" to respond.

If so, why do you think that is?



I don't think it's the times. I think it's the various interpretations of objectivity and skepticism.

Overseas? Sounds exciting. Do we get to know where you're going?

I know, but I aint tellin'!

Neener neener!

Rather than waiting for that happy day when something does pass peer review, why not order the Willow Creek Symposium DVD? (I understand the money goes to the Willow Creek Museum, not MM or the BFRO - I hope that's true. Rick got credit, but little else, I'm told.)

I'm watching parts of it for the second time and I'm really impressed with some of the presentations. Rick's even has elk for comparison. Jeff Meldrum shows us what looks like midtarsal flexibility in a Laetoli print. Chilcutt shows us exactly what he's talking about with the ridge flow and explains quite clearly about that infamous "touched-up" cast. I'm learning much more than I've been able to glean online or from my other DVDs or even most of my books.

Does Bob Gimlin look honest telling the story? You bet.

True, the guy could be out rescuing kittens from burning houses for all we know. :closedeyes:


I betcha I could be out rescuing kittens from burning houses and still find time to respond on the forum. :laugh:


Alright, no Ella jokes. :new_hmmsmiley02:

That still doesn’t answer my questions…now you’re gone and I’m posting to no one.
I guess thoughtful and polite questions don’t carry much weight.
What was the reason for not sharing before DY posted his hypothesis and DTK revealed he had an unedited Memorial Day tape?
How much more is known that Joe Bigfoot Enthusiast doesn’t know now? An answer of nothing, a little or a whole bunch would be fine, I don’t expect anyone will post any details.

I’ll give a lot of credit for what has been done… thank you, I really mean it (I’m sure that falls on deaf ears too).
I guess I’ll never understand the “privileged information” thing…but then again I guess I don’t need to know…right?


Yes, money…and lots of it. I don’t have the disposable income that some people do or live in an area where these conferences are held or receive a stipend for attending. So yes it is money, is that a bad thing?
I guess I’m stuck with the only way I can ask questions, the internet. If the only way to learn any more about the evidence is to attend conferences and ask questions in person and in private then I guess I’m s**t out of luck. Any suggestions?


I think that you are being a bit condescending now, how can you know any more about my thought process than I know of yours if the channels of communication are so limited? I’m speaking in general for all of us who aren’t quite convinced but aren’t as vocal as others. Keep your beef with those who you have a beef with but please don’t try and lump anyone inquisitive enough to ask hard questions into a group with which you hold such low regard for. Kind of makes a person think that you consider yourself above responding to internet posters, many of whom are very interested in learning more. I remember a guy just like that.



Dogfink out............Just for Vol.

:new_lmaosmiley:

:icon_really_happy_guy:

Colobus or DDA;

I think I've asked Rick this before, but let me be sure. Some parts of the original cast show adhesion of the Hydrocal to the substrate, other parts don't. The parts of the cast that were in contact with the compacted soil don't seem to exhibit soil adhesion. Is this due to;

1. The skin oils on the hair of the animal that impressed the soil acting as a sort of "release" compound, or

2. The compressed soil being naturally less likely to adhere to the Hydrocal?

Where I'm "going with this" is wondering aloud if you could use this to tell what was a fresh animal impression versus an older impression or simply a random surface detail.

Me neither, which is why I haven't made any comments on it yet DDA.

AM

I can't install iTunes for the same reason. I even tried disabling my firewall. Bipto's podcast is a nightmare on dial-up. I may have to spring for a high-speed connection after all.

I've seen the Gorilla stills DDA posted some time ago; they were good enough for me.

Seems a Brian Smith enacted the Skookum Roll in his backyard. The imprint can be seen on WCS. (Not the same Brian, is it? Bipto doesn't need to cast his pod?)

This is Brian Smith's body imprint:

Really hard to tell ..

Where was Brian on Sept 22, 2000 ?

Correction: Front yard.

Looks like DDA compressed the "Gorilla.mov" using QuickTime7 which uses H.264. You'll have to download QuickTime7 or download a stand alone video decoder like Lead Codecs to view the clip. Unfortunately you have to have Windows 2000 (Windows Me won't work) and above to run QuickTime7

I have XP Pro now. I finally gave up on Millenium after my CD-RW wouldn't work anymore (there was nothing wrong with the device). I was forced to buy a DVD-RW and get into a fairly expensive upgrade that caused me to buy a new printer/scanner since my old ones wouldn't work with the new setup. Then I heard my computer guru hanged himself in the shop. Today I found out it wasn't him.

I'm trying to download the standard H.264 in between bouts of copying everything in the house. :new_lmaosmiley: I'll know soon if it's corrupted too.

It's a short clip of a feeding gorilla squatting, shuffling a bit, and then from a sitting position, reaching over to pick up another piece of food (I think DDA said the food was apples). The subject is arguably doing exactly what proponents think a sasquatch might have done to make the Skookum impression. If you think this adds to your acceptance of the Skookum Cast as evidence for bigfoot, fine. I don't. But if you're on dial-up or are having problems getting it to play, you're not really missing anything.

I agree .. I saw nothing that looked like this ..





But I can appreciate that others will want to decide for themselves.

DDA Seemed perturbed that no one wanted to comment on the clip early on..
I trust that some of you will suspect as I did, he wasn't looking for skeptical comments..

I have no problem with the idea that a Sasquath could sit down, and reach over and pick
up a piece of fruit like we see in this clip.

I have no idea how it could do so, and leave the impression we see in the Skookum cast.
In my opinion, the goriila clip supports the former..

I am perplexed as to why DDA feels the gorilla clip shows otherwise..

I love both directions this debate has taken. It appears a lot of time has been put into analyzing the impressions and trying to come to a conclusion. One thing that stands out is the length of the hair. DY says Elk, while Colobus said that individual hairs were followed and measured to be at least 3 inches. That isn't elk hair. That's not to say an elk didn't sit there, but it does apparently indicate something with longer hair than an elk did as well.

Dan C

I believe Tube offered a plausible explanation for the apparent long hair.. I'll see if I can find it for you..


My bad.. It was DY ..


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=329212



I don't recall seeing Colobus reply to this.. I'll see what I can find..

It is a plausible explanation, but I'd like to see examples of what he's saying compared to the cast. That would be the only way to know one way or the other regarding the hair.

In my totally untrained opinion, I'd think hair that was long impressed into a soft surface would look very different than short hair that was dragged across that surface. I understand how the dragged hair might appear long, but I can't see how they could be mistaken for one another by a trained specialist or in comparison to each other.

If ONLY I have a some Play-Doh at hand...

Hmmm.. Silly putty ... My short haired dog .... Hmmmmm..

The trial I downloaded just wants me to pay $100 for the full version. I was finally able to find a standalone version of Quick Time 7 that works, but still no video. I guess the problem is dial-up. Drat.

I've seen plenty of higher primates at zoos, though, and they do tend to sit, roll, lean and otherwise behave on a Skookum sort of way over food. Our known hominid primate sits and reaches for food, too. Observe a picnic.

This isn't elk behavior, although they may graze while lying down. I still haven't seen a rational explanation from any elk imprint proponent on how it got up from that position.

In the WCS 2003 presentation Rick gave he notes a possible footprint that could have been obscured when the animal sat. If those are toe prints, then, yes, the animal stepped before it sat.

He and others have done a tremendous amount of work on this cast. He's posted volumes on it. I can certainly see why he has neither time nor patience with any more nit-picking from those who haven't seen the original, but nevertheless "know" it's an imprint of an elk lay. Radford and Crook would have been enough for me.

Rick, if you're reading this, I thank you for the invaluable information you've given us on this an other topics and wish you a happy journey to wherever it is you're going. Please report when you get back. And don't let the neener, neeners get you down. If they don't recognize a top researcher doing top-notch reasearch, who needs 'em? How many of them have tromped through the North Cascades and lost several trail cams? (BTW, what happened to the trail cam pictures we were so anxiously awaiting....................last year? :wink:)

[/quote]


Hmmm.. Silly putty ... My short haired dog .... Hmmmmm..
[/quote]


DON'T DO IT!! Unless, of course, you'd prefer to have an even shorter-haired dog, or desire to massage peanut butter into its fur.

Malaysia

I hope this thread isn't losing any steam?

I've finally seen the gorilla feeding clip and have to agree with our more outwardly skeptical (at least in name) friends. It's hard to see at such low res and small image, and I may well be totally wrong here, but it doesn't look to me like the gorilla's elbow ever even touches the ground? Though you can't see it, surely the opposite hand does touch the ground, which, if anything, helps discredit the sasquatch intrepretation because there is no distinct hand (that would be bearing a lot of weight) impression in the cast, only the vague more distant forearm with possible hand. I think someone should market a SkookumCast version of Twister which would be 70% (?) scale so we could throw it on the ground and try to better reenact what might have happened.

I still contend that it is really awkard and unnatural for us, and even worse for gorillas, to try to sit with your forearm nearly touching your thigh and/or your elbow anywhere near the ground at your hip as depicted in image #5 of Colobus's sequence.

More of a critique to follow, but have to be away for a few days. Unfortunately not in Malaysia. Hope that trip is productive for you DDA.

Apeman

Wow... there's a teaser if I ever saw one. Come on Rick, inquiring minds want to know.

Last I heard he may have left today so you will have to wait a while for a answer

It's going to be great. I cannot wait to see the results of this trip.

Good luck, Rick. I hope some of the hypothetical questions that I posed to you in chat will help in some way when you get there.

Rats.... patience is not a virtue of mine. Oh well, that Cryptomundo gig must pay pretty well I reckon.



(hmmm, come to think... I have no virtues anyway.)

Huh - I just checked cryptomundo.. Seems Rick Nolls last blog was on February 10, 2006.

Nightowl - Im thinking you assume way to much..

Just my opinion.

I think Nightowl was kidding.

:new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Say "Hi" to Sean Eng for us.

Sean Ang ?

O.k.
I'm back...busy past couple of weeks.
Long story short, work's kept me busy, BUT...been watching my mule lay down and stand up in the mud...been photographing the imprints, been documenting very distinctive characteristics. Now, mule's ain't elk...but they're morphologically close enough to give a rough estimate of how a hairy, hoofed quadruped stands and lays. Just like DDA's gorillas are an analog for a BF (though less so since they have longer arms, shorter legs, and a completely different style of walking...so a mule's better as an elk analog than a gorilla is as a BF). And, some of the characteristic landmarks visible in the mule's trace are clearly and definitely present in the Skookum cast offering new biomechanical insight into how exactly the animal moved as it sat and stood...all this is in the soon-to-be-submitted manuscript.

Speaking of the manuscript, real-world work took priority but I hope to get it wrapped up very shortly. Sincere apologies to those I've asked to critique it...it IS on the way. As I've stressed all along, the initial sketches and brief write-up were simply the results of my first look at the specimen. Since re-examining it, gathering more data, and going over colobus and DDA's new and improved interpretations, the final interpretive panel is much more complete, has been revised, and coupled with new observations of mule and also deer and moose lays, pretty much firms up the support for the elk interpretation (in my opinion).

This thread and the one I started have been very informative from a variety of points of view. I've been genuinely surprised by the lengths some people will go to in order to explain away a preponderance of data (elk hoof prints, elk-like hindlimb morphology, elk-like hair-flow patterns, elk-like wrist imprints, elk-like ilium contours, elk-like hind leg contours, and elk-like sternal imprints), but appeal to things that simply are not there (e.g., BF footprints, knuckle prints, hand prints, etc.). It's been repetedly said that the BF interpretation was carefully constructed only after all other possibilities were ruled out after much study and careful investigation. This forms the basis of subsequent accusations that I and others who quickly determined that the cast is identifiable as an elk simply haven't done our homework, or don't have enough experience, or (most recently) got out degrees too early in life. Probably all true. :new_lmaosmiley:

But stop for a moment and think...the cast was poured the morning the specimen was found. That means that the determination that the impression was of a BF was made on the spot. No careful comparison with elk lays took place. No careful analysis of the actual morphology or sediment-animal interaction took place. No detailed, well-thought-out, month- or year-long study was completed. It was determined on-site to be a BF and all subsequent research and observations carried out on the cast went into supporting that hypothesis, even down to bringing in primate anatomists. This is simply bad science. The hypothesis never changed and that almost never happens in scientific studies.

So, although I seem to have been labelled a "Skeptic" and appear to now represent all those nasty, mean, too-young Ph.D.'s who are just gunning to attack all BF-researchers and make names for ourselves in our weird little arcane halls of academia, it just ain't so. I do this as a hobby, like most folks on the forum. I have some skills that I believe help me sort out what's real and what's bogus, like most folks on the forum. I get absolutely no money at all for any of my studies that I do on my own time and own dime, like most folks on this forum. I have absolutely no desire to promote BF, promote myself as a BF researcher, appear on documentaries, give talks, raise funds, or make DVD's. I have no vested interest in BF being a real animal whatsoever. My bias is not to prove that BF exists, nor to prove that it doesn't. I benefit neither way, financially or otherwise. My bias is that I expect interpretations to fit the data without appeals to the hypothetical or the extraordinary, or the suspension of disbelief. My interpretation fits all the data (not the otherway around) and is readily duplicated by anyone who cares to go watch a deer, elk, moose, mule, horse, or donkey (they all have very similar morphologies) lay down in some mud. I hope everyone will keep this all in mind when reading through the previous posts in both these threads. Weigh the possibilities and choose for yourself as to who's actually got some sinister, conspiratorial agenda: the horrible, mean, dismissive academics who look at BF evidence and offer a more plausible and probable explanaition and then get on with life, or the BF researchers who continue to offer "Yes, but..." arguments to reasonable explanations, withhold "data" and interpretations, offer up increasingly bizarre scenarios to explain apparently uncomplicated data, and then begin questioning the qualifications and even educational backgrounds of those who disagree when all else fails.

O.k., more than enough from me.
The paper will soon be submitted, then it'll be a free-for-all for anyone who cares to offer a rebuttal in a formal publication. Just a word of warning, journals these days can take 6 -18 months to publish a paper depending on how many revisions need to take place after initial submission. I'll keep everyone updated on the progress, but until then, I guess that's about all I've got left to say about the Skookum Cast. Thanks to everyone who's offered up observations, interpretations, and differing opinions.
Hail Hail the BFF!

sounds like science to me

DY - I'm not sure you analysis here is correct. I OFTEN take casts, photographs, samples, etc. of things in the field that I do not recognize or are unsure of, bring it back home, and then conduct a thorough analysis (then 99% of the time, throw it away). I don't care a microscope with me in the field...nor do I have all the tools or expertise that I may need to study something with me. Just because they decided to cast it first, then determine if it was an elk or sasquatch later, doesn't to me mean there was a bias nor that they didn't thoroughly study it for elk.

What I do see is that they felt there was something unusual about it, casted it to PRESERVE it, then brought it back to study. That IS how real science is done and exactly what I would have done.

I can envision another scenario where they didn't collected, deciding it was elk and someone else complaining THAT wasn't scientific!

It is always better to collect it then throw it away, rather than not collect it.

That thing weighed over 250 lbs. They must have thought there was a good reason to lug it home; just how do you throw away a cast that size? Will the garbage men pick it up?

How much did the Hydrocal cost Rick?

True that Hairyman, and no argument that it's better to collect and then discard than never to collect. My point is that, as I understand it, the story goes that although it looks like an elk print, it has elk sign all around it, under it, and in it, and there's zero hominid sign anywhere near it, it was determined in the field to be a hominid imprint...based on...?insert favorite reason here?...the story then goes on to say that only after many laborious days, weeks, and months of study, dermal ridges were found on a heel, primate anatomists were called in, etc. What strikes me as genuinely disingenuous is the repeated assertion that anyone (like me) who looks at the specimen or a cast, measures it, spends time looking at it, compares it with known impressions of known animals, and then formulates an interpretation other than "hominid" has somehow not put forth all the effort and study that went into the allegedly tortuous attempt to rule out all other taxa, and begrudging acceptance of a hominid as the originator. In short, the thing was determined in the field to be a probable hominid imprint (enough so to warrant 250 lbs. of Hydrocal), and all efforts went into proving the point.

We have now all heard ad nauseum about the support given by three primate anatomists (if we include Grover), John Green, and a couple of wildlife biologists with unknown expertese in tracking. SUPER! BUT...where are the opinions of the animal trackers? The ichnologists? The elk biologists? The ungulate specialists? As I understand it, several have offered their opinions. So...who? What did they say? Is there a consensus? Where is this information? The three trackers I've asked have all quickly pointed out features of ungulate, specifically elk, imprints just from looking at 8X11 photos. Are they all incompetant? If so...let's hear from the elk specialists, etc. that the pro-BF group has gotten information from. That's what I'm referring to when I mentioned withheld data or interpretations. If I gathered up a bunch of these folks, dragged them to San Antonio, and had them all submit their opinions (let's say that it's an elk), there would be accusations of bias, unscientific influence, etc. So I'm at a standstill as far as this goes. It's up to the BF-researchers who want the cast to be a hominid imprint to get the group of trackers, biologists, and ichnologists together, explain the circumstances of the casting, and have them submit their findings. I'm betting if they find it to be an elk lay, there will again be cries of "They weren't qualified...They were biased...They didn't spend enough time looking...etc., etc., etc."

The good thing to come from all this is that a few more people, myself included, will learn a whole lot more about animal tracks and sign, a few more people will study up on anatomy of primates and ungulates, and a few more will come away with a clearer understanding of the thought processes that go on in interpreting the complex interactions of animals, sediment, and the human brain...now...I need coffee...

Um, I've asked this before and didn't get an answer. Weren't you going to post diagrams showing it's a composite of various animal imprints (which was also ruled out by lightweights like Meldrum and Sarmiento, I believe). Are you writing a paper on that too?

All part of the same paper.
It's an elk lay. A lay is defined as a bedding area used repeatedly over time. At least 2 and possibly a third elk imprint are represented by cross-cutting body and hoof prints. You can actually see the first two quite clearly in the photos I've posted, and in Murphy's book. The complete figure is in the manuscript and can't be posted until the paper's published...rules of the journals...sucks, but there's nothing I can do.

THE NERVE !!!!!!!!! How dare they make such a discovery days weeks or even months later... Humm - maybe that means they actually did hands on work with the original cast? Now, that takes guts!!!



No, lets be honest here. You formulated your opinion on copies of the cast and pictures. Period. Yes, you asked for an outside opinion - but only after telling them what the options were - how does that qualify as an unbiased opinion?? Unbiased is to have your experts view - with no knowledge of what you or others may think. You put out two options an Ungulate or a Bigfoot -- if your experts do not think bigfoot is a possibility - Im not shocked they went with an Elk..



Ummmmm, I think thats been ongoing. I could be wrong.



I actually agree with you here.

Missed the point here entirely. The decision was made that a hominid, not elk was responsible within minutes of discovery. Not after exhaustive study. All the hands-on work in the world isn't worth much if they eyes are unfamiliar with what's being fondled. Would you want a BMW mechanic to diagnose a brain injury? Sure, he knows his cars inside and out, but I'd be more willing to go with the guy that actually studies brains. Same with tracks...anatomists are awesome....but ichnologists might be better choices to examine ichnological data.



Wel...since we're being honest...you're honestly worng. I looked at the cast replica (as Krantz did with Bossburg) and then compared it with published examples, actual examples, and cast examples of real-life ungulate lays. The opinions I sought were only just to see if maybe somehow I was missing something glaringly obvious, and were phrazed something like: "The two possibilites that have been seriously entertained are: 1) an elk or big deer, or 2) a large primate...any thoughts?" Horribly biased I realize, but fortunately, my interpretations based on my own observations, and my own knowledge (limited in comparison to many others I have no doubt), and my own comparisons, formed the basis of my opinions. The opinions of others only lent support after I'd completed the bulk of my work.


Yeah...coffee's good.

Right - within minutes it was deemed so valuable - leroy fish walked right through it. You can not say that evidence must be collected for further examination - then be surprised if new evidence is later discovered -- Im frankly surprised and confused by your statements in regards to this. Are you telling me you have never found something in the field, in relation to your work - and been surprised later during examination to find something new?



Did you bring up these opinions of yours - before or after recieving the completed evaluation?

I have no issue with you and your research here. I have an issue with how you went about it. Your actions show a bias - and you relayed that bias to your "experts". Say what you will.. You did not examine the original cast - and I should simply go along with your theory based on what you say about copies, pictures and internet discussions.

Sorry, but I demand more, and that wont change. And, Im not missing any point, I think you are.